They are not, they exist solely and explicitly to circumvent the “due process of law” particularly the 6th and 7th amendments.
How does a plea bargain remove the defendant’s right to legal counsel or a trial? It does neither of those things. Yes, it’s used erroneously by prosecutors and that’s a huge problem, but the accused gets counsel even if they can’t pay for it and the trial is always an option.
If you’re saying plea bargains are designed to intimidate people into not going to trial, yes that’s true, but that’s not the same thing as circumventing an amendment. That’s not the same thing at all.
No. Plea bargains are due process. It is far from perfect, ideal, or even good. But the seventh amendment isn’t a novel-sized book, so they left some things to our society’s interpretation, and we’re fucking it up bigly.
The core of our disagreement is this:
They are not, they exist solely and explicitly to circumvent the “due process of law” particularly the 6th and 7th amendments.
Yes, and the fact that isn’t viewed as the blatant coercion it is, and a blatant violation of the 5th amendment, is part of the problem.
How does a plea bargain remove the defendant’s right to legal counsel or a trial? It does neither of those things. Yes, it’s used erroneously by prosecutors and that’s a huge problem, but the accused gets counsel even if they can’t pay for it and the trial is always an option.
If you’re saying plea bargains are designed to intimidate people into not going to trial, yes that’s true, but that’s not the same thing as circumventing an amendment. That’s not the same thing at all.
De jure vs de facto. From the standpoint of a legal fiction you’re not wrong, however an option made under duress isn’t really an option.
Do you also argue that homelessness doesn’t exist due to squatters rights?
No. Plea bargains are due process. It is far from perfect, ideal, or even good. But the seventh amendment isn’t a novel-sized book, so they left some things to our society’s interpretation, and we’re fucking it up bigly.