In cases of crimes where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused, should we always bother with a trial or are there circumstances in which that could be bipassed and a judge or jury could just sentence the person based on the "charges"?

It's called "pleading guilty".

Being that the persons handing down the sentence are almost never witnesses to the crime, it is necessary at the very least to present evidence so that the facts of the case are known to those passing judgment.

Unless you advocate the witnesses carrying out punishment on the spot, then yes, a trial is always necessary.

Besides, seeing the events doesn't mean you know the whole story.

What if he was off his meds? What if he was on new meds? What if someone told him to do it or they'd kill his mom?

I mean there are arguments that could land him in the loony bin vs. jail, and maybe that's better for him ... for society.

in cases where both parties agree on the facts and the only issue is whether or how the law applies, then there wont be a trial. most cases have some kind of factual dispute, even if its very one-sided, and in those cases there's a trial. i dont really see a way around this

Yes. I'm assuming by removing trials you are saying we should rely on mandatory sentences, which is basically saying the individual quirks and nuances of a particular case do not matter, that, say, a murder is a murder and every murder should result in the same punishment, regardless of the offender's chances for rehabilitation.

That would be removing sentencing, not trials.

Yes. Always.


So are fees. Preferrably up front.

I third this. Everyone, including Osama, is entitled to a trial.

Then they can go to the underground solitary confinement cell for the rest of the lives.

*fixed. Excellent Simpsons ref, nevertheless.

Oh, and of course trials aren't always necessary. Cases settle all the time.

criminal case + settlement = 404 error file not found

I didn't see the word "criminal" in the thread title.

How about criminal case + plea bargain?

That'll compute with me... but Percy Foreman (arguably the greatest criminal defense attorney of all time) would say to you:

"THIS ISN'T A GODDAMN FLEA MARKET!!!"

I think he preferred "negotiated plea agreement".

A professor of mine in law school said, "A trial is a failure," meaning that if you can't settle beforehand, someone has failed in their job.

So an admitted murderer who commited the act in the view of witnesses who bears no remorse....

Why again do we need to spend tens of thousands on the trial itself? Seems to me the intense police documentation handed over to a judge should be plenty.

Because if he is dumb enough in such circumstances to plead not guilty, he has a constitutional right to a fair trial. Not sure what the relevance of "remorse" is to the issue of guilt, by the way. That's an issue for sentencing, and thus a whole different topic.

Well what's the point in pleading guilty/not guilty in a case where there's overwhelming obvious guilt?

Look, I robbed the store. It's on camera, the store owner positively identified me.

What is the point in a trial in these cases, again? An opportunity for defense attorneys to plead for weaker sentencing? An opportunity for prosecutors to fuck something up and let him walk on a technicality?

I hear what you're saying on an abstract level, but when you get down to the details of cases, the lines almost always blur. As such, hundreds of years of experience tells us that the plea system is the best* way of weeding out the guilty from the innocent. If we forfeit the right of trial in the "obvious" cases, where do we draw the line, especially where that line is blurry and subjective? Would you trust judges with that job?

And what about the cases which on the face of it look open and shut, but turn out to be much more complex and subtle? Often, the truth doesn't reveal itself more fully until the defense presents its case.




Again, the defendant would be stupid not to plead guilty in such a case. That is, if it was that open and shut. What if he was threatened with his life if he didn't rob the store? What if a dozen gang members were waiting outside with AK 47s if he didn't go in? Unfortunately, the nature of the beast is that even if the police know about this evidence, they're not likely to procure it before the court. That is incumbent on the defendant, and that being the case, a trial is the only forum in which he can do so.



This only ever happens on TV. People don't walk on technicalities, unless the errors are very serious, in which case, we can't really call them technicalities anymore. Appellate courts use a "harmless error" test on review, and if there's substantial evidence of guilt, and such a finding was open to the jury, there's no way in hell they'd overturn the verict.

Prosecution errors have to be pretty huge for a case to be overturned. Like witholding all kinds of exculpatory evidence, or paying snitches a buttload of money without disclosing it, or insinuating to the jury that they don't have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt etc.

And even then... 99.9% of the time the cases are retried, because jeopardy "hasn't attached". Courts are loathed to dismiss cases "with prejudice" ie. without ability to retry the case. It rarely ever happens.


*best. Maybe "least bad" is the more accurate description.

I don't want a damned trial when I do my killings.

Then by all means plead guilty.

I think this guy did. And he waived all his appeals too. His reason? "Can't spend the rest of my life without women."



http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/foustaaron.htm

And his infamous last statement:

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/foustaaronlast.htm