This seems very much the antithesis of our criminal motto of “innocent until proven guilty.”
We know based on numerous studies that sometimes people plead guilty even if they are innocent. We know sometimes people are pressured to take plea bargains despite the lack of evidence by overworked attorneys. We know that people’s own memories are some of the least reliable means of finding the truth. We even know people can be convinced they did something even if they didn’t.
So why do we even let people plead guilty? Because it’s easier then going to trial? It’s more cost efficient?
Sure, I get it. I’m almost always about government becoming more efficient.
But how can we still raise the motto that people are innocent until proven guilty if we allow plea bargains to exist? It specifically encourages nothing to be proven. It encourages us to skip over the step of proving.
Efficiency should not be the process by which our justice system runs.
I don’t even think there is a moral/ethical philosophy to back up a system like that.
If people are encouraged to plead guilty, then this isn’t a system of discouragement.
Perhaps, it could work as a system of rehabilitation, but again, this is assuming these are people who are actually guilty. Also, our system is not built to be one that rehabilitates currently. At least not alone.
Regardless of our philosophy, the point is- We should be always looking for proof before sticking people with a “criminal label.” That we have such a system which circumvents proof is exactly against the (arguably) most well known phrase about American criminal justice.
Maybe I’m missing something, though.
