Interview confessions vs. conviction rate

[JoetheGI]

Watched a few episodes of a T.V. series called "The First 48" (show that follows homicide squads around the nation), and noticed that despite the fact the "suspect" often confesses to their crimes, while being taped and on video by the way, there are often times they are convicted of lesser crimes. While plea bargains have to be a factor in some cases, others just don't seem to make sense.

Is the weight of a confession given during an interview not very significant, or are the lesser charges simply a result of the jury system or some other weird factors?

It seems a little odd that when all the evidence, be it "circumstantial" or otherwise, points to an individual/s, and they ADMIT they committed the act ON VIDEO for all to see, they would not face the maximum punishment under the law that their crime warrants.

[mobrien316]

Prosecutors are often willing to take a "sure thing" (i.e. - a plea to a lesser crime) rather than go to trial. If a case goes to trial it takes time, resources, and winds up going to a jury. A jury can do ANYTHING.

So, it is not uncommon for a person who could be looking at something like Aggravated Sexual Assault 1st to wind up taking a plea of Sexual Assault 2nd. It is still a felony, but it is mandatory 9 months instead of mandatory 5 years.

It saves the prosecutor a lot of time and resources.

[G35 Mass]

A lot of the cases on "The First 24hrs" are joint-venture cases. One murder, four charged because it was a robbery, etc.. If you pay close attention, you'll see often that it's the participators but not the actual triggerman that get the lesser offenses. Yes, they technically can go for the more serious offense, but it's not always easy to convince a jury to buy the whole "joint venture" argument. So as mobrien stated, the prosecutors will offer a lesser offense to guarantee a conviction rather then chance a not guilty from the jury.

[Joeyd6]

Our court systems are flooded here. And juries tend to let people slide on things. I have a case where a well educated (law degree) man, who is vice president of a major bank flat out stole $250,000. He did it by making fasle statements on paperwork and lying about the situation. we interveiwed him, he confessed on video and wrote a full confession. Took it to get prosecuted and I was told $250,000 is not enough of a loss!

[MikeG]

Our court systems are flooded here. And juries tend to let people slide on things. I have a case where a well educated (law degree) man, who is vice president of a major bank flat out stole $250,000. He did it by making fasle statements on paperwork and lying about the situation. we interveiwed him, he confessed on video and wrote a full confession. Took it to get prosecuted and I was told $250,000 is not enough of a loss!

Can you shop the venue? I can see feds getting swamped with bank/mortgage fraud and not wanting to prosecute federally below a certain amount but a county prosecutor that routinely prosecutes thefts, frauds and robberies for quite a bit less than $250k might want a bite at that apple.

[JoetheGI]

we interveiwed him, he confessed on video and wrote a full confession. Took it to get prosecuted and I was told $250,000 is not enough of a loss!

Madness.

Just plain madness.

Prosecutors are often willing to take a "sure thing" (i.e. - a plea to a lesser crime) rather than go to trial.

I guess I just don't understand how it is possible to obtain any more proof of guilt than the audio and video recorded admission of the individual who committed the crime itself. Given the right to remain silent, and the fact that these individuals choose to speak of their own free will, one would think their statements alone would suffice for a conviction, and especially when viewed with any other evidence.

I guess this is why the recidivism rate is so high.

[Joeyd6]

Can you shop the venue? I can see feds getting swamped with bank/mortgage fraud and not wanting to prosecute federally below a certain amount but a county prosecutor that routinely prosecutes thefts, frauds and robberies for quite a bit less than $250k might want a bite at that apple.

Yes and no. We can go state charges but everything we got with federal subpoenas is tossed out and has to be "re-investgated" by a state/local PD with state subpoena's. A royal PITA...plus feds don't have to pay for teh records while state and locals do. So now I have to convince a local/state prosecutor to take teh case, have a PD invest time to get the same records I have, pay the bill for the (`$2,500), and then order restitution which goes back to th efeds...not the state! Thus they get nothing out it except a cost and headache.