What can the U.S. government do to prevent powerful people to get extremely favorable plea bargain deals like Jeff Epstein?Do the Democratic/Republican parties have any control over their membership and primary votersCan the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?What electoral mechanisms might prevent the rise of a demagogue?Why do airline companies and foreign government agencies have the right to prevent foreigners heading to US?How to better ensure no conflict with laws of the United States for a person wanting to run for public officeHave congressional hearings any effect concerning military scandals?How many treaties ratified by Congress did the US exit unilaterally?Fake News: How can a government of and by the people address the problem?Congress's power to Declare War vs Authorization to Use Military Forces (AUMF)Why is Facebook not restricted by the U.S. government to be politically neutral, like the U.S. Army, for example?
What is the metal bit in the front of this propeller spinner?
How to handle not being able to attend as often as I'd like
What does the following chess proverb mean: "Chess is a sea where a gnat may drink from and an elephant may bathe in."
Why is the UH-60 tail rotor canted?
My current job follows "worst practices". How can I talk about my experience in an interview without giving off red flags?
How to create quantum circuits from scratch
What happens to a permanent I gained control over using Agent of Treachery, and I leave a multiplayer game?
Why Lie algebras if what we care about in physics are groups?
Monday's Blocking Donimoes Problem
Is it better to merge "often" or only after completion do a big merge of feature branches?
How should I handle a question regarding my regrets during an interview?
How to pass array of values in lualatex?
On a Gameboy, what happens when attempting to read/write external RAM while RAM is disabled?
What do Unicorns want?
Can "Taking algebraic closure" be made into a functor?
Finding Greatest Common Divisor using LuaLatex
What does a Nintendo Game Boy do when turned on without a game cartridge inserted?
Why is there an extra "t" in Lemmatization?
What is the standard representation of a stop which could be either ejective or aspirated?
How can I remove studs and screws from the inside of drywall when installing a pocket door without needing to do paint and patch work on both sides?
Do I have to mention my main character's age?
Pass USB 3.0 connection through D-SUB connector
Do I care if the housing market has gone up or down, if I'm moving from one house to another?
Strange LED behavior
What can the U.S. government do to prevent powerful people to get extremely favorable plea bargain deals like Jeff Epstein?
Do the Democratic/Republican parties have any control over their membership and primary votersCan the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?What electoral mechanisms might prevent the rise of a demagogue?Why do airline companies and foreign government agencies have the right to prevent foreigners heading to US?How to better ensure no conflict with laws of the United States for a person wanting to run for public officeHave congressional hearings any effect concerning military scandals?How many treaties ratified by Congress did the US exit unilaterally?Fake News: How can a government of and by the people address the problem?Congress's power to Declare War vs Authorization to Use Military Forces (AUMF)Why is Facebook not restricted by the U.S. government to be politically neutral, like the U.S. Army, for example?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
We know that Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal from the chief prosecutor. The media is now questioning if there was due process, or someone powerful got into the way of the due process.
What can the U.S. government do to prevent powerful people to get extremely favorable plea bargain deal like Jeff Epstein? Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
united-states law corruption
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
|
show 2 more comments
We know that Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal from the chief prosecutor. The media is now questioning if there was due process, or someone powerful got into the way of the due process.
What can the U.S. government do to prevent powerful people to get extremely favorable plea bargain deal like Jeff Epstein? Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
united-states law corruption
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
7
The question to me seems quite broad. Whole books could probably be written about 'how can the influence of very wealthy people be limited', or 'how can the US government fight corruption'.
– Time4Tea
Jul 12 at 17:45
I agree that this is too broad, so just an idea: in Spain there is the possibility of "private prosecution", a lawyer hired by the affected party that can push charges independently from the public prosecution. So if the private prosecutor does not agree with a deal, he can still press charges to see the matter judged (that said, in practice the public prosecution's opinion still carries a lot of weight)
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:45
There is even the "popular prosecution" that allows an entity not directly affected but with interests in the case(e.g., a women's rights association in a rape case) to press charges.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:46
1
I think any reasonable definition of "powerful people" necessarily means they are better able than others to obtain favorable deals. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
– emory
Jul 13 at 1:53
I think this question is impossible to answer at this time because it’s still not clear why Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal. Even if you assume that he got a favorable deal because he’s rich and powerful, we don’t yet know how he used his wealth and power to get the deal.
– Joe
Jul 13 at 10:58
|
show 2 more comments
We know that Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal from the chief prosecutor. The media is now questioning if there was due process, or someone powerful got into the way of the due process.
What can the U.S. government do to prevent powerful people to get extremely favorable plea bargain deal like Jeff Epstein? Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
united-states law corruption
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
We know that Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal from the chief prosecutor. The media is now questioning if there was due process, or someone powerful got into the way of the due process.
What can the U.S. government do to prevent powerful people to get extremely favorable plea bargain deal like Jeff Epstein? Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
united-states law corruption
united-states law corruption
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 18:20
Denis de Bernardy
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
21.7k5 gold badges60 silver badges89 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
asked Jul 12 at 17:08
yocuyocu
2246 bronze badges
2246 bronze badges
7
The question to me seems quite broad. Whole books could probably be written about 'how can the influence of very wealthy people be limited', or 'how can the US government fight corruption'.
– Time4Tea
Jul 12 at 17:45
I agree that this is too broad, so just an idea: in Spain there is the possibility of "private prosecution", a lawyer hired by the affected party that can push charges independently from the public prosecution. So if the private prosecutor does not agree with a deal, he can still press charges to see the matter judged (that said, in practice the public prosecution's opinion still carries a lot of weight)
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:45
There is even the "popular prosecution" that allows an entity not directly affected but with interests in the case(e.g., a women's rights association in a rape case) to press charges.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:46
1
I think any reasonable definition of "powerful people" necessarily means they are better able than others to obtain favorable deals. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
– emory
Jul 13 at 1:53
I think this question is impossible to answer at this time because it’s still not clear why Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal. Even if you assume that he got a favorable deal because he’s rich and powerful, we don’t yet know how he used his wealth and power to get the deal.
– Joe
Jul 13 at 10:58
|
show 2 more comments
7
The question to me seems quite broad. Whole books could probably be written about 'how can the influence of very wealthy people be limited', or 'how can the US government fight corruption'.
– Time4Tea
Jul 12 at 17:45
I agree that this is too broad, so just an idea: in Spain there is the possibility of "private prosecution", a lawyer hired by the affected party that can push charges independently from the public prosecution. So if the private prosecutor does not agree with a deal, he can still press charges to see the matter judged (that said, in practice the public prosecution's opinion still carries a lot of weight)
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:45
There is even the "popular prosecution" that allows an entity not directly affected but with interests in the case(e.g., a women's rights association in a rape case) to press charges.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:46
1
I think any reasonable definition of "powerful people" necessarily means they are better able than others to obtain favorable deals. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
– emory
Jul 13 at 1:53
I think this question is impossible to answer at this time because it’s still not clear why Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal. Even if you assume that he got a favorable deal because he’s rich and powerful, we don’t yet know how he used his wealth and power to get the deal.
– Joe
Jul 13 at 10:58
7
7
The question to me seems quite broad. Whole books could probably be written about 'how can the influence of very wealthy people be limited', or 'how can the US government fight corruption'.
– Time4Tea
Jul 12 at 17:45
The question to me seems quite broad. Whole books could probably be written about 'how can the influence of very wealthy people be limited', or 'how can the US government fight corruption'.
– Time4Tea
Jul 12 at 17:45
I agree that this is too broad, so just an idea: in Spain there is the possibility of "private prosecution", a lawyer hired by the affected party that can push charges independently from the public prosecution. So if the private prosecutor does not agree with a deal, he can still press charges to see the matter judged (that said, in practice the public prosecution's opinion still carries a lot of weight)
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:45
I agree that this is too broad, so just an idea: in Spain there is the possibility of "private prosecution", a lawyer hired by the affected party that can push charges independently from the public prosecution. So if the private prosecutor does not agree with a deal, he can still press charges to see the matter judged (that said, in practice the public prosecution's opinion still carries a lot of weight)
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:45
There is even the "popular prosecution" that allows an entity not directly affected but with interests in the case(e.g., a women's rights association in a rape case) to press charges.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:46
There is even the "popular prosecution" that allows an entity not directly affected but with interests in the case(e.g., a women's rights association in a rape case) to press charges.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:46
1
1
I think any reasonable definition of "powerful people" necessarily means they are better able than others to obtain favorable deals. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
– emory
Jul 13 at 1:53
I think any reasonable definition of "powerful people" necessarily means they are better able than others to obtain favorable deals. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
– emory
Jul 13 at 1:53
I think this question is impossible to answer at this time because it’s still not clear why Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal. Even if you assume that he got a favorable deal because he’s rich and powerful, we don’t yet know how he used his wealth and power to get the deal.
– Joe
Jul 13 at 10:58
I think this question is impossible to answer at this time because it’s still not clear why Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal. Even if you assume that he got a favorable deal because he’s rich and powerful, we don’t yet know how he used his wealth and power to get the deal.
– Joe
Jul 13 at 10:58
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Very simple : ban plea bargains.*
Alternatively, make a maximum percentage discount.
However this would not prevent various other methods, of avoiding justice, so, whilst closing of an easy avenue, cannot guarantee results in all cases.
* There are other good reasons to do so, and possibly also drawbacks
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
3
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
9
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
|
show 1 more comment
A plea bargain already has to be signed off on by the District Attorney and a Judge. Supposedly this should be enough to prevent extreme leniency, as the DA, and much moreso a Judge, should be unbiased and justice-minded.
In practice, legislation like mandatory notification of victims of a deal, as well as giving appeal jurisdiction to higher courts could provide a mechanism for victims to challenge an egregious deal.
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
add a comment |
Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
In the specific case of Jeff Epstein, the allegation is that he is a blackmailer who collects money from some of his victims and favors from others. It is worth noting that he has not been convicted of blackmail, only of things related to having sex with minors. Blackmail is thus a speculative explanation of his situation.
The United States (or whatever country) could do better vetting of public officials. If candidates for public office had to face a security check where negative information was then published, it seems much less likely that there would be many who were then able to give preferential treatment to people blackmailing them. Same thing for appointees. Then spot check officials periodically to ensure that they had not become corrupt or vulnerable in the meantime.
Another allegation was that he paid off witnesses. As such, it is possible that he would not have been convicted even if brought to trial. This is harder to prevent, as it is already illegal. It is possible that sufficient resources would have been able to catch either his agent or he himself paying off the witnesses.
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42929%2fwhat-can-the-u-s-government-do-to-prevent-powerful-people-to-get-extremely-favo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Very simple : ban plea bargains.*
Alternatively, make a maximum percentage discount.
However this would not prevent various other methods, of avoiding justice, so, whilst closing of an easy avenue, cannot guarantee results in all cases.
* There are other good reasons to do so, and possibly also drawbacks
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
3
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
9
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
|
show 1 more comment
Very simple : ban plea bargains.*
Alternatively, make a maximum percentage discount.
However this would not prevent various other methods, of avoiding justice, so, whilst closing of an easy avenue, cannot guarantee results in all cases.
* There are other good reasons to do so, and possibly also drawbacks
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
3
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
9
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
|
show 1 more comment
Very simple : ban plea bargains.*
Alternatively, make a maximum percentage discount.
However this would not prevent various other methods, of avoiding justice, so, whilst closing of an easy avenue, cannot guarantee results in all cases.
* There are other good reasons to do so, and possibly also drawbacks
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
Very simple : ban plea bargains.*
Alternatively, make a maximum percentage discount.
However this would not prevent various other methods, of avoiding justice, so, whilst closing of an easy avenue, cannot guarantee results in all cases.
* There are other good reasons to do so, and possibly also drawbacks
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
edited Jul 12 at 18:08
Brythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 17:52
OrangesandlemonsOrangesandlemons
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
2,6386 silver badges22 bronze badges
3
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
9
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
|
show 1 more comment
3
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
9
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
3
3
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
The issue with "maximum discounts" is that someone can be indicted for is not an exact science. And the attorney may ask for the maximum possible punishment or the minimum. So the attorney can decide to retract the charges for murder for which he asked 25 jail years and to accuse instead of manslaughter and ask for the minimum time of 5 years, and suddenly the "maximum discount" rule is no longer an obstacle.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:39
9
9
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
And for "drawbacks" of forbidding plea bargains, count in "the collapse of the judiciary system". The number of cases that actually get sentenced is a really tiny fraction of the total (I have seen numbers as low as 7%), ban plea bargains and you suddenly have multiplied by 14 the resources of the judiciary...
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:53
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
This simply moves the problem from the judge imposing the sentence to the prosecutor deciding which charges to bring (and is already quite an issue due to mandatory minimum sentences.)
– arp
Jul 13 at 1:28
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@SJuan76 some countries (allegedly Germany, Japan up until 2018 or so, though its hard to find exact information given different legal systems) manage to function without them, but yes, definitely less cases could go through. Though when you consider that the US locks up more of its citizens than almost everywhere else, less prosecutions might not be the worst thing in the world.
– mbrig
Jul 13 at 2:03
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
@mbrig I fail to see the point you are trying to make, since "less prosecutions" is exactly what is wrong with Epstein's case.
– SJuan76
Jul 13 at 15:30
|
show 1 more comment
A plea bargain already has to be signed off on by the District Attorney and a Judge. Supposedly this should be enough to prevent extreme leniency, as the DA, and much moreso a Judge, should be unbiased and justice-minded.
In practice, legislation like mandatory notification of victims of a deal, as well as giving appeal jurisdiction to higher courts could provide a mechanism for victims to challenge an egregious deal.
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
add a comment |
A plea bargain already has to be signed off on by the District Attorney and a Judge. Supposedly this should be enough to prevent extreme leniency, as the DA, and much moreso a Judge, should be unbiased and justice-minded.
In practice, legislation like mandatory notification of victims of a deal, as well as giving appeal jurisdiction to higher courts could provide a mechanism for victims to challenge an egregious deal.
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
add a comment |
A plea bargain already has to be signed off on by the District Attorney and a Judge. Supposedly this should be enough to prevent extreme leniency, as the DA, and much moreso a Judge, should be unbiased and justice-minded.
In practice, legislation like mandatory notification of victims of a deal, as well as giving appeal jurisdiction to higher courts could provide a mechanism for victims to challenge an egregious deal.
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
A plea bargain already has to be signed off on by the District Attorney and a Judge. Supposedly this should be enough to prevent extreme leniency, as the DA, and much moreso a Judge, should be unbiased and justice-minded.
In practice, legislation like mandatory notification of victims of a deal, as well as giving appeal jurisdiction to higher courts could provide a mechanism for victims to challenge an egregious deal.
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 20:47
ThomasThomasThomasThomas
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
7423 silver badges14 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
In the specific case of Jeff Epstein, the allegation is that he is a blackmailer who collects money from some of his victims and favors from others. It is worth noting that he has not been convicted of blackmail, only of things related to having sex with minors. Blackmail is thus a speculative explanation of his situation.
The United States (or whatever country) could do better vetting of public officials. If candidates for public office had to face a security check where negative information was then published, it seems much less likely that there would be many who were then able to give preferential treatment to people blackmailing them. Same thing for appointees. Then spot check officials periodically to ensure that they had not become corrupt or vulnerable in the meantime.
Another allegation was that he paid off witnesses. As such, it is possible that he would not have been convicted even if brought to trial. This is harder to prevent, as it is already illegal. It is possible that sufficient resources would have been able to catch either his agent or he himself paying off the witnesses.
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
add a comment |
Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
In the specific case of Jeff Epstein, the allegation is that he is a blackmailer who collects money from some of his victims and favors from others. It is worth noting that he has not been convicted of blackmail, only of things related to having sex with minors. Blackmail is thus a speculative explanation of his situation.
The United States (or whatever country) could do better vetting of public officials. If candidates for public office had to face a security check where negative information was then published, it seems much less likely that there would be many who were then able to give preferential treatment to people blackmailing them. Same thing for appointees. Then spot check officials periodically to ensure that they had not become corrupt or vulnerable in the meantime.
Another allegation was that he paid off witnesses. As such, it is possible that he would not have been convicted even if brought to trial. This is harder to prevent, as it is already illegal. It is possible that sufficient resources would have been able to catch either his agent or he himself paying off the witnesses.
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
add a comment |
Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
In the specific case of Jeff Epstein, the allegation is that he is a blackmailer who collects money from some of his victims and favors from others. It is worth noting that he has not been convicted of blackmail, only of things related to having sex with minors. Blackmail is thus a speculative explanation of his situation.
The United States (or whatever country) could do better vetting of public officials. If candidates for public office had to face a security check where negative information was then published, it seems much less likely that there would be many who were then able to give preferential treatment to people blackmailing them. Same thing for appointees. Then spot check officials periodically to ensure that they had not become corrupt or vulnerable in the meantime.
Another allegation was that he paid off witnesses. As such, it is possible that he would not have been convicted even if brought to trial. This is harder to prevent, as it is already illegal. It is possible that sufficient resources would have been able to catch either his agent or he himself paying off the witnesses.
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
Is there something in the legal process that allows powerful people to allow to manipulate the legal and political process to get favorable outcomes?
In the specific case of Jeff Epstein, the allegation is that he is a blackmailer who collects money from some of his victims and favors from others. It is worth noting that he has not been convicted of blackmail, only of things related to having sex with minors. Blackmail is thus a speculative explanation of his situation.
The United States (or whatever country) could do better vetting of public officials. If candidates for public office had to face a security check where negative information was then published, it seems much less likely that there would be many who were then able to give preferential treatment to people blackmailing them. Same thing for appointees. Then spot check officials periodically to ensure that they had not become corrupt or vulnerable in the meantime.
Another allegation was that he paid off witnesses. As such, it is possible that he would not have been convicted even if brought to trial. This is harder to prevent, as it is already illegal. It is possible that sufficient resources would have been able to catch either his agent or he himself paying off the witnesses.
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
edited Jul 13 at 17:52
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
answered Jul 12 at 18:18
BrythanBrythan
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
78k8 gold badges167 silver badges268 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f42929%2fwhat-can-the-u-s-government-do-to-prevent-powerful-people-to-get-extremely-favo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
The question to me seems quite broad. Whole books could probably be written about 'how can the influence of very wealthy people be limited', or 'how can the US government fight corruption'.
– Time4Tea
Jul 12 at 17:45
I agree that this is too broad, so just an idea: in Spain there is the possibility of "private prosecution", a lawyer hired by the affected party that can push charges independently from the public prosecution. So if the private prosecutor does not agree with a deal, he can still press charges to see the matter judged (that said, in practice the public prosecution's opinion still carries a lot of weight)
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:45
There is even the "popular prosecution" that allows an entity not directly affected but with interests in the case(e.g., a women's rights association in a rape case) to press charges.
– SJuan76
Jul 12 at 20:46
1
I think any reasonable definition of "powerful people" necessarily means they are better able than others to obtain favorable deals. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
– emory
Jul 13 at 1:53
I think this question is impossible to answer at this time because it’s still not clear why Jeff Epstein got an extremely favorable plea bargain deal. Even if you assume that he got a favorable deal because he’s rich and powerful, we don’t yet know how he used his wealth and power to get the deal.
– Joe
Jul 13 at 10:58