Deals

[ChaosRocket]

So me and Mozz's discussion of the day was, should deals be allowed in the legal system? For instance let's say a murderer has testimony that could be used to convict another murderer, should they give the first murderer a deal and reduce or eliminate his jail time in exchange for testimony? Or alternatively, allow someone to plead to a lesser charge in exchange for pleading guilty to save the time and expense of a trial. Is this just?

 

[Mozz]

Chaos, open the case.

/see if anyone gets that reference

 

[Eszett]

Let's face it: regardless how much informational or monetary compensation a criminal offers, he is still guilty of the crime and can do nothing to change that unless he can substantiate that he did not commit the crime. Pleading a lesser punishment for those who reveal information about other convicts is the only thing I can see acceptable in this situation, since allowing the criminal to roam the streets free without having any repercussion for his actions will not in any way discourage him from doing the same thing again.

Even so, such levying of the penalties should be nominal at best since not every criminal is going to have info on anyone else.

 

[ChaosRocket]

I guess the problem is...what if one guy murdered 10 people, and another guy only murdered one person? And it would be really hard to convict the guy who murdered 10 people without the other guy's testimony. Is it OK to the let guy who just murdered one person go free in order to be able to lock up the guy who murdered 10? It might be better for society that way, yet it doesn't seem very just, to purposefully let someone get away with a crime and have no punishment.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

I judge by two questions:
1) Is the benefit of putting the second criminal behind bars greater than the harm done by letting the first get off easy in exchange for testimony?
2) Would the deal get the criminal less punishment than a criminal involved in a lesser crime?