Comments on: The Inherent Injustice of Plea Deals http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-inherent-injustice-of-plea-deals Rants and musings about things political, philosophical, and religious. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:34:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Brandon http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-inherent-injustice-of-plea-deals#comment-62563 Brandon Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:46:53 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=790#comment-62563 Hey Connor! Just wanted to recommend a book to you and/or your readers that includes this subject and much more. <em>The Tyranny of Good Intentions</em> by Paul Craig Roberts. I have to say it is one of the major influences on me deciding to go to law school. Hey Connor!

Just wanted to recommend a book to you and/or your readers that includes this subject and much more. The Tyranny of Good Intentions by Paul Craig Roberts. I have to say it is one of the major influences on me deciding to go to law school.

]]> By: Josh Williams http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-inherent-injustice-of-plea-deals#comment-60857 Josh Williams Thu, 14 May 2009 19:00:54 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=790#comment-60857 OK, here's my opinion. Going at this from the standpoint of a <i>legal</i> argument doesn't work. It's the job of the circuit appeals courts to interpret the law. While you may not agree with their ruling, it's nonetheless legally binding. I think a better approach would be to argue it from a <i>moral</i> standpoint. Show why the practice inevitably leads to moral contradictions. A strong moral argument is more likely to impress a Judge. OK, here’s my opinion.

Going at this from the standpoint of a legal argument doesn’t work. It’s the job of the circuit appeals courts to interpret the law. While you may not agree with their ruling, it’s nonetheless legally binding.

I think a better approach would be to argue it from a moral standpoint. Show why the practice inevitably leads to moral contradictions. A strong moral argument is more likely to impress a Judge.

]]> By: Gabriel http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-inherent-injustice-of-plea-deals#comment-60840 Gabriel Thu, 07 May 2009 21:40:58 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=790#comment-60840 There are three theories of punishment. 1. Retribution 2. Deterrence 3. Rehabilitation I agree that plea bargains are not just, and this stems from our current hybrid system of punishment i.e. deterrence and rehabilitation. In the Old Testament, crimes were not committed against the "state", they were committed against other human beings, and restitution was required. If you stole $100 from someone, you would be required to return the original sum plus 20% ($120). See Numbers 5:7. The idea was to restore that which had been taken from the victim, plus compensation for being deprived of his asset. This was justice, this was restitution. If someone steals $100 from you today, you will not receive back your money and will in fact be forced to pay for the prosecution and imprisonment of the offender through your tax money. Murray Rothbard stated: "The idea of primacy for restitution to the victim has great precedent in law; indeed, it is an ancient principle of law which has been allowed to wither away as the State has aggrandized and monopolized the institutions of justice. In medieval Ireland, for example, a king was not the head of State but rather a crime-insurer; if someone committed a crime, the first thing that happened was that the king paid the "insurance" benefit to the victim, and then proceeded to force the criminal to pay the king in turn (restitution to the victim's insurance company being completely derived from the idea of restitution to the victim)." The State has monopolized the institution of punishment, and the rights of victims of crime have been separated from penal law. This is one way plea bargains have crept into the system and radically changed our cultures concept of justice (or lack thereof). There are three theories of punishment.

1. Retribution
2. Deterrence
3. Rehabilitation

I agree that plea bargains are not just, and this stems from our current hybrid system of punishment i.e. deterrence and rehabilitation. In the Old Testament, crimes were not committed against the “state”, they were committed against other human beings, and restitution was required.

If you stole $100 from someone, you would be required to return the original sum plus 20% ($120). See Numbers 5:7. The idea was to restore that which had been taken from the victim, plus compensation for being deprived of his asset. This was justice, this was restitution.

If someone steals $100 from you today, you will not receive back your money and will in fact be forced to pay for the prosecution and imprisonment of the offender through your tax money. Murray Rothbard stated:

“The idea of primacy for restitution to the victim has great precedent in law; indeed, it is an ancient principle of law which has been allowed to wither away as the State has aggrandized and monopolized the institutions of justice. In medieval Ireland, for example, a king was not the head of State but rather a crime-insurer; if someone committed a crime, the first thing that happened was that the king paid the “insurance” benefit to the victim, and then proceeded to force the criminal to pay the king in turn (restitution to the victim’s insurance company being completely derived from the idea of restitution to the victim).”

The State has monopolized the institution of punishment, and the rights of victims of crime have been separated from penal law. This is one way plea bargains have crept into the system and radically changed our cultures concept of justice (or lack thereof).

]]> By: ldsliberty http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-inherent-injustice-of-plea-deals#comment-60839 ldsliberty Thu, 07 May 2009 21:08:56 +0000 http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/?p=790#comment-60839 I agree that plea deals are completely unjust. I look at this issue as another example of how our view of justice and law has gone astray. As Cleon Skousen says in "The Making of America", the purpose of government action was initially to seek restitution for the victim whose rights had been violated. Based upon this principle, it would be up to the victim to decide whether to prosecute, offer a plea deal, or just forgive the perpetrator. It would not be up to the government - for the government would only be carrying out the wishes of the victim. Unfortunately today we do not have this form of justice. Rather than the criminals compensating victims, the victims get to compensate the criminals by paying for their room, board, education, medical care, etc, etc. If we went back to this initial view of government, then we would not only have true justice but we would also eliminate all government action which was not designed to protecting rights. I agree that plea deals are completely unjust. I look at this issue as another example of how our view of justice and law has gone astray. As Cleon Skousen says in “The Making of America”, the purpose of government action was initially to seek restitution for the victim whose rights had been violated. Based upon this principle, it would be up to the victim to decide whether to prosecute, offer a plea deal, or just forgive the perpetrator. It would not be up to the government – for the government would only be carrying out the wishes of the victim.

Unfortunately today we do not have this form of justice. Rather than the criminals compensating victims, the victims get to compensate the criminals by paying for their room, board, education, medical care, etc, etc.

If we went back to this initial view of government, then we would not only have true justice but we would also eliminate all government action which was not designed to protecting rights.

]]>