The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale
Drawing parallels between medieval torture and modern plea bargaining, commenters argue that the U.S. justice system often coerces confessions by threatening vastly harsher sentences at trial, especially when combined with long pre-trial detention and overburdened public defenders. Others counter that offering reduced sentences is not equivalent to torture and stress the need to improve, not discard, existing legal safeguards such as the presumption of innocence. The exchange broadens into concerns about wrongful convictions, double jeopardy, preventive detention, and how different countries balance finality of verdicts against the need to correct miscarriages of justice.
Plea Bargains as Modern Coercion
- Large subthread on whether plea bargains resemble a modern, non-physical “torture” mechanism.
- One side: a plea is simply a discount on a fixed “default” sentence; the threat is just the normal trial outcome, and the defendant rationally weighs risk of conviction vs chance of acquittal.
- Other side: this is “backwards” because prosecutors can inflate trial exposure via stacked charges and extreme statutory penalties, making even harsh pleas look attractive.
- High plea rates (around 96–97% of convictions) are cited to argue sentences are effectively calibrated around pleas, not trials.
Role and Power of Prosecutors
- Disagreement over how much prosecutors control sentences: formally judges (and sometimes juries) sentence, but prosecutors shape outcomes by charge selection and plea terms.
- Commenters note mandatory minimums and guidelines tie sentences tightly to charges, giving prosecutors de facto control.
- Counterpoint: going too high on charges risks acquittal; examples where juries acquitted on serious charges but might have convicted on lesser ones.
Pre-Trial Detention, Cost, and Coercion
- Several argue pre-trial detention, bail disparities, and long waits (years in extreme cases) heavily pressure defendants, including innocents, into pleas.
- Overburdened public defenders, high trial costs, and the risk of dramatically higher sentences at trial amplify this pressure.
- Some describe detention conditions and isolation as effectively torturous; others say calling all such pressure “torture” dilutes the term, while still acknowledging serious injustice.
Double Jeopardy and Factual Innocence
- Discussion of jurisdictions where acquittals cannot be revisited even with new evidence (e.g., German case blocked by constitutional protection), prioritizing legal certainty.
- Contrast with systems allowing retrials on new evidence or prosecution appeals of acquittals; practices vary (US, Canada, Sweden, Italy).
- Noted US doctrine that new evidence of innocence after a procedurally proper conviction does not guarantee a new trial; clemency is framed as the “fail-safe,” but criticized as unreliable.
Systemic Critique vs Incremental Reform
- Some see the legal system as structurally incapable of delivering justice; any just outcomes are “happy accidents.”
- Others argue that despite serious flaws, persistent reform has yielded real improvements and is the only viable path; dismissing the system entirely is seen as unhelpful.