Well, that's still lower than Japanese police conviction rate. According to The Economist, 95% of people arrested in Japan sign confessions, and Japanese courts convict 99.9% of those who come before them. You're practically judged by the street cop or prosecutor that makes the arrest.
Source: The Whole Story on Japan’s 99% Conviction Rate, and the Corruption that Follows - Confessing for Nothing
Specifically, the link you specify gives very misleading information from some of it's sources. For example when discussing Ramseyer and Rasmusen's paper, they quote a part out of context from the introduction of the paper and conclude that the paper indicates that corruption among judges is the reason for high conviction rates.
However, if you look at Wikipedia's summary of the conclusion, you get a completely different perspective: "In murder, U.S. police arrested 19,000 people for 26,000 murders, in which 75% were prosecuted and courts convicted 12,000 people. In Japan, 1,800 people were arrested for 1,300 murders, but prosecutors tried only 43%. Had the allegation that Japanese prosecutors use weak evidence mostly based on (forced) confessions to achieve convictions been true, the larger proportion of arrests would have resulted in prosecutions and eventual conviction. But the opposite is true. In fact, the data indicates that Japanese prosecutors bring charges only when the evidence is overwhelming and likelihood of conviction is near absolute, which gives a greater incentive for the accused to confess and aim for a lighter sentence, which, in turn, results in a high rate for confession."
Even though I live in Japan, I don't actually know that much about the justice system. The one time I've seen the police in action they were incredibly lenient (My friend, who suffered from schizophrenia violated the terms of her visa and also punched a police officer, yet they treated her incredibly kindly and didn't even arrest her).
I often say this in threads about Japan. There are problems here just like anywhere else. Unfortunately, however, it seems to be fairly profitable to write stories in newspapers that promote stereotypes of foreign countries, including Japan. I would recommend trying your best to track down primary sources before you make any conclusions about these kinds of stories.
Who wrote that analysis? I'm aware that the answer is "I don't know" and "likely several people", but that's my point. It's less reliable than a random comment on HN. Wikipedia is good for some things, but an analysis of research on the Japanese legal system isn't one of them (IMHO).
I feel a bit like I'm being trolled, but just to close the gap between our positions, that's exactly the point of my original post: you need to look up the primary sources so that you can tell if the spin is accurate. It was never my intention to suggest that Wikipedia is more or less trustworthy than any other random site on the internet. Rather, because both sites reference the same study and come to exactly opposite conclusions, it's a good indication that you should read the original paper. It is my opinion that the Wikipedia article in this case is considerably more accurate than the original linked article. I'm not quite sure how the original article came to the conclusion they did, unless they were being intentionally misleading, to be completely honest. Again, I highly recommend reading the paper if you are interested in making your own conclusion.
While your link raises a number of interesting arguments, that statistic doesn't stand by itself.
By and large, the vast majority of people that appear before the courts are guilty. If the guilty/not-guilty split were 50/50, it would indicate completely indiscriminate policing.
So, to make a determination about the false-guilty pleas, we'd need some data those in particular. That is to say, that statistic combines true-guilty and false-guilty, so you can't make an argument that too many people are forces to plea guilty. At least with that statement alone.
True. That invites the question, can we know what proportion of the prosecuted are guilty? I think we can, but we would need to hire a pool of people to secretly serve as test subjects -- to commit a crime (or not) then be charged for it (or not) and tried for it, and only reveal their true status after their case reached a verdict.
Only then could we get a good idea how fair the legal system really is. The invention of such a clandestine "Justice League" would be a pretty interesting way to measure whether any local or national police/justice system is fair and effective.
It doesn't stand by itself, but when viewed in conjunction with what we know about the legal system and how defendants are strong-armed by all sides to accept plea deals, it's sickening.
What if someone did it and is willing to admit it? Still force them to go to trial, a trial that may take longer than the punishment for their crime? And victims too, say someone robs you, now you're forced to take time off work to attend a trial for the person that admitted to robbing you and also doesn't want a trial.
Plus there would need to be a massive expansion of the court system to accommodate trials for everyone. Where's the money to pay for that going to come from?
Criminal justice reform is necessary, removing plea deals completely is foolishly short sighted.
> Still force them to go to trial, a trial that may take longer than the punishment for their crime?
Yes. People have been coerced into false pleas. The prosecutor should have to prove the case. And if their punishment is so light, we should consider if it should be a crime at all.
>And victims too, say someone robs you, now you're forced to take time off work to attend a trial for the person that admitted to robbing you and also doesn't want a trial.
If you want them to be punished, then the prosecutor has to prove their case. If it is so cut and dry, perhaps they don't need your testimony at all.
>Plus there would need to be a massive expansion of the court system to accommodate trials for everyone. Where's the money to pay for that going to come from?
We get rid of minor crimes that shouldn't be crimes to begin with. Reduce the prison population and you can use the saved money to expand courts a bit, if need be. Was the cost reason enough to not ensure other rights are met, such as work needed to comply with ADA?
>removing plea deals completely is foolishly short sighted.
Not seeing the fundamental violation of rights caused by plea deals is foolishly ignorant.
The whole point of a plea deal is to give a more lenient sentence in exchange for admitting guilt. If that wasn't the case everyone would just go to trial for everything, there's always a chance of getting out.
In theory. In practice, extreme punishments, along with penury from the costs of a defense, have to be threatened because the CJ system has lost the ability to deliver justice at trial.
Yes, which would have the effect of cutting down on speeding tickets issued since it's an extra court date for the officer. Many can't be bothered already when you take a ticket to court.
Require the police to prove their point, make it take some actual work, and perhaps departments will stop using them as a revenue source and focus on more dangerous driving issues than someone going 5 over.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/26/plea-bargainin...
Definitely time to get the lawyers OUT of government.