tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post4020158995999296666..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: the morality of plea bargainingJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-17200202408769570342007-11-24T20:46:00.000-08:002007-11-24T20:46:00.000-08:00anonymous, yep. Langbein is a little down on the ...<B>anonymous</B>, yep. Langbein is a little down on the government.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52989654491318236722007-11-24T18:05:00.000-08:002007-11-24T18:05:00.000-08:00Following your analogy, it seems as if the governm...Following your analogy, it seems as if the government is being put in a spotlight where they are the bad guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-26246985703052729772007-11-18T19:33:00.000-08:002007-11-18T19:33:00.000-08:00abr,I think Langbein would say no, since he thinks...<B>abr</B>,<BR/><BR/>I think Langbein would say no, since he thinks the whole setup is coercive. Analogy: if someone threatens to shoot you twice if you don't cooperate, but only once if you cooperate, it would strain morality to say that the second option is a "reward."Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-58611917713920391032007-11-18T16:24:00.000-08:002007-11-18T16:24:00.000-08:00Couldn't you say that it actually works more as a ...Couldn't you say that it actually works more as a reward system in which your sentence is lessened from what it would be if you chose to go to court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-37821734467353288962007-11-15T20:07:00.000-08:002007-11-15T20:07:00.000-08:00Now earic.Now earic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-48283104960549573972007-11-12T14:38:00.000-08:002007-11-12T14:38:00.000-08:00anonymous, as I understand it, Langbein is saying ...<B>anonymous</B>, as I understand it, Langbein is saying that...<BR/><BR/>1. Prosecutors threaten punishments that they know the guilty criminal won't receive in a jury trial. (This violates proportionality.)<BR/><BR/>2. That individually they possess too much unchecked power. (This violates due process.)<BR/><BR/>Using either argument would depend on the Aff case.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-8409062044498074732007-11-12T14:25:00.000-08:002007-11-12T14:25:00.000-08:00It doesn’t have to be unjust to have a more harsh ...It doesn’t have to be unjust to have a more harsh punishment... If you use proportionality then it can be look at as just... for example if a person knows he is guilty and declines the plea bargain in hopes that he wont be found guilty then he is wasting the resources of the court and should have a proportionally larger sentence for such actions thus being just in doing so <BR/>I hope that helpsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-87433651546449658002007-10-30T18:26:00.000-07:002007-10-30T18:26:00.000-07:00About the criminal being punished once for the cri...About the criminal being punished once for the crime and once for exercising their right: This happens when the jury finds them guilty. So assuming they're guilty, would they be guilty of perjury as well as their original crime for proclaiming innocence and taking the case to trial? You could also argue that this obstructs justice by postponing serious cases and as more time passes, people forget things that could have made a difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-24209590289774550422007-10-29T13:43:00.000-07:002007-10-29T13:43:00.000-07:00kat, an interesting response. Why is rationality ...<B>kat</B>, an interesting response. Why is rationality a criterion for justification, though? A criminal might put a gun in my face and say "Give me all your money," at which point it would be perfectly rational for me to give up the cash in order to protect my life. After all, I'm aware of the chances of "punishment" should I choose to test his scheme, and I am a rational person who values his life and his family.<BR/><BR/>What I'm essentially arguing is that a severe enough threat of force <I>is</I> coercion. You can argue whether coercion is justified, but that's a separate matter from their rational acceptance or rejection of the choices offered.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-88804575796473006502007-10-29T10:48:00.000-07:002007-10-29T10:48:00.000-07:00Although you can argue the society is being unjust...Although you can argue the society is being unjust by offering them a much harsher sentence if they choose to pursue a trial,if a person is fully aware of the chances of their punishment and still makes the choice to have trial then it is just. If this person is a rational person then we can assume he's making his own rational decisions so it is therefore justified. The State is not forcing him or her.Kathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15845104811553575792noreply@blogger.com