Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

It's a conversation, Ash. They tend to change over time.

I think that the only real issue with the plea bargain thingy is the "fair for the individual" phrase. A plea bargain is not necessarily fair. But it's possible that's been addressed since page 21.

I actually meant what specifically is the point in this discussion? Or was there ever one?

I saw Inception last night. It was pretty good. The weak spot was what Joph said - Ellen Page overload. Also, I just don't think she was cast well for the part.

It's an anonymous internet forum. Nothing we discuss ever has a point.

I've had quite a high opinion of her acting skillz ever since watching Hard Candy and American Crime in the same weekend.

ETA: Stupidmonkey, fix yer damn sig.

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 10:12am by Belkira

Have you ever looked at your own sig? It's a sin against quotes.

I thought Hard Candy was kind of meh.

I suppose the worst of it is when they meet that disreputable character who only wants to use them. You can see it so clearly, but there's nothing you can do.

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. Maybe I can get some clarification on this issue.

Forgive me for the lack of legal jargon. Contrary to BT's beliefs, I don't watch court shows and I've never been to court.

From my interpretation, there are limitations (upper and lower bounds)that a person can get for particular crimes. Within those limitations, a person can get varied sentences for the same crime, i.e murder. It was my understanding that part of the reason why the ruling can vary is based on how good of a lawyer you have. In other words, a lawyer can take the information from each case and work it towards their client's favor.

I would say that it is safe to assume that the defendant typically wants to be seen as innocent and the prosecutor wants the defendant to get the max ruling. Because of this, it is the lawyer's job to ensure that s/he doesn't get the max, but something more fair (which is a relative) to the client.

Sort of. The prosecution and defense can agree to a guilty plea to a lesser charge, if the judge signs off on it.

And the defendant, of course.

If the prosecutor thinks he has a 30% chance to get a murder conviction (for example), but a second-degree conviction is much more likely, he might propose that the defendant plead out to 2nd-degree with a possibility of parole rather than take a chance on a jury.

The defense might make a counterproposal but it's going to be within a given range. He's not going to get a murder charge knocked down to jaywalking, but he might suggest manslaughter.

I think you're right about rulings, but rulings and plea bargains aren't the same thing. I may be wrong, but I don't think a judge even needs to be involved in a plea bargain.

My point about the fairness thing is that if you didn't commit a crime, but for whatever reason the "evidence" seems stacked against you, you can take a plea bargain to serve a lesser sentence. That's not fair to you, because you didn't commit any crime at all, but you have to serve time. It's more beneficial in this case because instead of serving a year, they'll only give you three months or whatever.

It's also not "fair" if you really did commit the crime, but you have to do less time. I also think, though this may be way off, that you can accept a plea bargain for turning someone else in who is either also involved in this crime, or is involved in a larger crime or something.

Edit: Apparently I'm wrong about the "without a judge involved" part. My mistake!

Edited, Aug 18th 2010 10:46am by Belkira