Fair enough, let me step back because I'm getting angry.

You're right that "biased in process" and "wrong outcomes" aren't the same thing. A system can have unfair disparities (wealth based, racial, whatever) without necessarily convicting innocent people at scale. That's a reasonable distinction.

But that's not what sparked this thread. Go back to the top: the original claim was "when is the law just in its application?" implying never or nearly never. My position is that it's just more often than not. That's the disagreement.

If you're saying the system has procedural problems that create unfair pressure but generally reaches correct guilty/not guilty determinations, then we probably don't disagree much. That's a claim about needing reforms, not about fundamental systemic failure.

The issue is when people use "98% plea bargains" or "inherently coercive" to argue the system is fundamentally broken. If that's not what you're arguing, then we're likely closer to agreement than it seemed.

> But that's not what sparked this thread. Go back to the top: the original claim was "when is the law just in its application?" implying never or nearly never. My position is that it's just more often than not. That's the disagreement.

> If you're saying the system has procedural problems that create unfair pressure but generally reaches correct guilty/not guilty determinations, then we probably don't disagree much. That's a claim about needing reforms, not about fundamental systemic failure.

An unjust system can still get the right answer most of the time.

And I think it's very likely our system applies so much pressure to take a plea bargain that it is unjust. That it is making mistakes at scale that we could avoid with reasonable effort.

I would say it's fixably broken, but it probably is broken.

And I don't think anyone on this comment page was arguing that a majority of convictions are innocent people.

Dylan, you're a masterclass in saying nothing whilst appearing to argue.

You invented that "7%" stuff in a sibling thread from thin air. You claimed nobody was arguing about innocent convictions whilst spending a dozen comments defending why plea coercion is a massive problem. You say the system gets the right answer most of the time but insist it's still unjust. You won't define "broken" but you're certain the system is it.

Every time I pin you down, you redefine terms. "Unjust" doesn't mean wrong outcomes, it means procedural pressure. "Broken" doesn't mean failing, it means needs improvement. "Coercive" doesn't mean producing false confessions, it just means... pressure exists, somehow.

This is a thread about MLK describing actual injustice: arresting peaceful protesters under correctly applied laws. You've watered "unjust" down to "I don't like some aspects of plea bargaining" and expect that to carry the same moral weight.

Here's what you won't say directly but keep implying: that plea bargains routinely produce false confessions. Because if they don't, then your entire argument collapses to "the system works but could be nicer," which isn't a disagreement worth having.

My position: the law is applied justly more often than unjustly. You either disagree with that or you don't. No more semantic gymnastics. Which is it?

> You invented "7%" from thin air.

Yes. I said I did. Because when I openly talk about a hypothetical number, people have to focus on whether my logic is correct or incorrect. Because that part of the post was about what implies what.

> You claimed nobody was arguing about innocent convictions

No. I said nobody argued MOST convictions were innocent.

Because you keep talking about MOST convictions to make your arguments.

> "Unjust" doesn't mean wrong outcomes

Doesn't mean a specific number of wrong outcomes.

This is the key miscommunication that has caused the entire argument.

A system can be unjust in 100% of cases, but only give the wrong answer in a smaller percent of cases.

> "Coercive" doesn't mean producing false confessions, it just means... pressure exists, somehow.

coerce: To use force, threat, fraud, or intimidation in an attempt to compel one to act against their will.

Edit: To make a clearer statement, whether it's coercion is about whether there is an unreasonable amount of pressure being applied. This has no connection to whether the confession is true or false.

> Here's what you won't say directly but keep implying: that plea bargains routinely produce false confessions.

Yes.

> My position: the law is applied justly more often than unjustly. You either disagree with that or you don't. No more semantic gymnastics. Which. is. it?

Ugh, this is annoying when we're disagreeing about what "just" means.

The way you're using it, the law is just more often than not.

But "more often" is an absolute garbage threshold. We need way way way better than that.

Alright, let's see if I get this right.

You're arguing that a system can apply the law unjustly even when it reaches correct outcomes. I think that's only meaningful if the "unjust application" materially affects people's lives in ways that matter beyond process.

So: plea bargains. You say they apply unreasonable pressure. But what makes the pressure unreasonable? A prosecutor offering a reduced sentence for pleading guilty isn't force, threat, fraud, or intimidation. It's a straightforward trade: save the court's time and resources, get a lighter sentence. That's pressure, but it's not inherently unreasonable.

You could argue it becomes unreasonable when the alternative is so severe that even innocent people feel compelled to plead. But that's an empirical claim. How often does that happen? You've now said you think plea bargains routinely produce false confessions. That's testable. Where's the evidence?

On thresholds: you're right that "more often than not" sounds low for a justice system. But the question is compared to what? Every alternative has error rates. Jury trials have wrongful convictions. Bench trials have wrongful convictions. The question isn't whether the system is perfect, it's whether it's better than the realistic alternatives and whether the error rate is acceptable.

What error rate would you accept? Because without that, "we need way way way better" is just saying "it should be perfect," which isn't achievable.

The original claim upthread was that the law is rarely applied justly. That's not a claim about error rates being too high, it's a claim that injustice is the norm. Do you actually believe that, or are you arguing something more limited about plea bargaining specifically?

> So: plea bargains. You say they apply unreasonable pressure. But what makes the pressure unreasonable? A prosecutor offering a reduced sentence for pleading guilty isn't force, threat, fraud, or intimidation. It's a straightforward trade: save the court's time and resources, get a lighter sentence. That's pressure, but it's not inherently unreasonable.

The biggest issue these days seems to be that people can't afford a proper trial. So instead of a relatively fair exchange of simplifying out the risk of trial for a certain outcome, reducing hassle for everyone, there's a five figure monetary weight tipping the balance. The prosecutor isn't causing this but the design of the system is.

> How often does that happen? You've now said you think plea bargains routinely produce false confessions. That's testable. Where's the evidence?

I don't know where the evidence is. Remember my first comment was saying you should bring in evidence for your strong claims. I don't have strong claims right now, I have worries.

> What error rate would you accept? Because without that, "we need way way way better" is just saying "it should be perfect," which isn't achievable.

We need a lot more information before I can say what an acceptable error rate.

But there's some obvious factors pushing us away from that, so we're very likely not where we should be.

> The original claim upthread was that the law is rarely applied justly. That's not a claim about error rates being too high, it's a claim that injustice is the norm. Do you actually believe that, or are you arguing something more limited about plea bargaining specifically?

If the vast majority of people feel unsafe going to trial, then the law is not being applied in a just way. And I think that is a very common feeling. The amount it pushes error rates is smaller, because a lot of those people are guilty. But often they're not guilty of the full accusation, and sometimes they're not guilty of anything.

So I think a lot of people are going through an unfair process, and some of them are getting incorrect sentences.

I think a general sentiment that the law is unjust, or that people are not getting due process, is a reasonable opinion to have about that process.

If you have a specific comment you want to refer to by "the law is rarely applied justly", I can look at that specific one, because I'm not sure who you are referring to. verisimi's crack was a pretty vague implication, and jakelazaroff was arguing that people don't get proper due process. Neither of those statements is making an extreme claim about error rates.

Fair enough. We've found the actual disagreement.

You're right that cost is a real barrier, and it's a legitimate concern. If people can't afford proper representation, then the "choice" to take a plea isn't fully voluntary. That's a structural problem worth addressing.

Where we differ is on scale and characterisation. You say "the vast majority of people feel unsafe going to trial." That's a strong empirical claim that needs evidence. Feeling unsafe and actually being coerced are different things, and both matter, but they're not the same.

The original claim upthread was that the law is rarely applied justly. You've now moderated that to "the process is unfair for people who can't afford defence, and this produces some incorrect sentences." That's a much more limited claim, and one I'd largely agree with. Structural inequality in access to justice is a real problem.

But that's not the same as "the system is fundamentally unjust" or "plea bargains routinely coerce false confessions." Those are the claims that sparked this entire thread, and you've now acknowledged you don't have evidence for them.

So: agreed that cost barriers create real injustice. Disagreed that this means the system is unjust more often than just, which was the original claim.

> You say "the vast majority

I put an "if" on vast majority. I put confidence on "very common".

> The original claim upthread was that the law is rarely applied justly. You've now moderated that

> Disagreed that this means the system is unjust more often than just, which was the original claim.

Well again, if you tell me which specific comment you mean then I'll address that specific comment.

> But that's not the same as "the system is fundamentally unjust" or "plea bargains routinely coerce false confessions." Those are the claims that sparked this entire thread, and you've now acknowledged you don't have evidence for them.

You are the only person that has used the word 'fundamentally'. And yes the plea bargain thing needs evidence but should not be rejected for lack of citations.

You demanded I provide numbers for "vast majority" and "edge cases" in your first reply. I provided data: 375 exonerations over 35 years in a system processing 20 million cases annually. You then spent two dozen comments redefining terms and refusing to commit to any position.

Now you claim your speculation "should not be rejected for lack of citations" whilst having opened by demanding exactly that from me. That's not intellectual honesty, that's having it both ways.

On "fundamentally": you've argued the system is unjust in 100% of cases, that plea bargains are inherently coercive, and that false confessions happen routinely. Whether you used that specific word is irrelevant. Those are claims of fundamental dysfunction.

You ask which comment I mean. Here's the thread: verisimi asked "when is the law just in its application?" implying rarely or never. I said more often than not. You've argued with that for two dozen comments whilst refusing to state your own position. When pressed, you admitted you "don't have strong claims, just worries." That's fine, but it's not a basis for a dozen-comment argument.

The pattern here is clear: you make strong implications without committing to them, demand evidence from others whilst providing none yourself, redefine terms when pinned down, and retreat to semantic quibbles when substantive points fail. That's not productive discussion.

I engaged seriously when you made your cost barrier point. That was substantive. But you've chosen to return to arguing about whether you said "if" and who used which word.

I'm done. You've had multiple opportunities to state a clear position. You haven't. Readers can judge for themselves whether that's because you don't have one or because you're unwilling to defend it.

The innocence project data only applies to a very specific kind of case with a very long sentence. It's a start but it's not much.

And I have never redefined a term. Don't confuse disagreement with dishonesty.

I don't know why you're so offended at me using "if" occasionally. You keep trying to force me to use specific numbers even after I say I don't have specific numbers. That's not good faith on your part.

> demand evidence from others whilst providing none yourself

Dude. I made one demand for evidence. At the very start. In a comment where I made no claims.

I have made no demands for evidence since then, just one reminder that's where we started when you bugged me about evidence.

Even if that would make my later comments hypocritical, my original comment wasn't.

I need evidence and so do you.

> Now you claim your speculation "should not be rejected for lack of citations" whilst having opened by demanding exactly that from me. That's not intellectual honesty, that's having it both ways.

What do you think is dishonest?

I never rejected your argument for lack of evidence.

I don't want either argument rejected until we get more evidence.

-

And yeah I'm pretty done too. Your comments are full of false narratives about what I'm saying.

Also I stated a very clear position at the start, then you threw a big pile of half-related things at me. It's not my fault you think I don't have a "clear position", because every time I try to focus and state one, you start talking about something else.