I believe the better question is whether we agree with the holding and the reasoning. My answer is no. I think a situation like this "makes sense" to prosecutors, but even then probably not across the board
Yeah I think on paper a structure like plea bargaining could work the way the court says cause, hey, alternative modes of resolution are something that sound good and we want to encourage different ways of handling things, especially in ways that would equalize the power dynamic. That's just not what really happens imo though
Is there anyone who agreed with the holding or at least preferred it to the dissent? You obv don't need to speak up when we do the actual talking in Zoom if you don't wanna but it seems like we've all got similar stances, which isn't the best for this sorta thing
yeah ahch-to, particularly disturbed about the line in the opinion that the prosecutor and defense "possess relatively equal bargaining power". like no. defendant has risk of being labelled criminal, or being stripped of liberty.
I also feel incredibly uneasy with the court's admission that "this Court has necessarily accepted as constitutionally legitimate the simple reality that the prosecutor's interest at the bargaining table is to persuade the defendant to forgo his right to plead not guilty" - naming outright that the goal of prosecutors is to try to prevent "not guilty" pleads even from those who want to assert their right to a trial
@ Earth No, if during the course of the trial there ultimately wasn't enough evidence to prove a crime...they could reduce it. but upcharging is a huge issue and a realistic bar for folks not going to trial.
onderon- clearly not as much as they are now, but at least they might bring fairer charges and if the defendant wants to waive jury trials because they are guilty than so be it, but not if they are innocent and look at the options and take the risk averse deal
@Earth - I'm thinking of for instance in the MPRE that we are explicitly taught that defs have the right to make prosecutors prove every element of the charge in a trial. Perhaps my uneasy feeling is from the fact that prosecutors would rather try to persuade a not guilty charge and incarcerate as many people as possible based on their subjective reasonings of guilt instead of just acknowledging that true due process means going through the whole process.
@Earth - like the point of the prosecutor's role is to incarcerate people. So yeah, they will want to do what they can to get a defendant to plead guilty. But do we really want to keep upholding that prosecutor's interest as just "why wouldn't they?" instead of "why should they?"