Crime caught on video?

[Note: askblog had an existence prior to the virus crisis. I still schedule occasional posts like this one.]
Rafael A. Mangual writes,

the increased rate of plea bargaining in the United States might also reflect the impact of technological advancements on the likelihood of a guilty verdict. For example, it is now estimated that 80 percent of crimes involve video evidence, which is largely a function of the increase in the number of both public and private security cameras in use, as well as the increase in the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) (which, by 2016, were used by nearly half of all law enforcement agencies in the U.S.). Interestingly, a meta-analysis of the literature on BWCs noted a study finding that 93% of prosecutors reported using BWC footage “primarily to prosecute citizens.” That meta-analysis also noted empirical support for the proposition that the presence of BWC footage increases the chances of guilty pleas (in addition to guilty verdicts, and the filing of criminal charges).

His argument is that technology is making it easier to prove guilt, and that is reducing the incentive for accused criminals to go to trial.

6 thoughts on “Crime caught on video?

  1. According to the SJWs, BWCs were supposed to capture the inherent racism of LEOs (law enforcement officers).

    Instead, the exact opposite seems to have occurred.

    There are entire YouTube channels dedicated to BWCs and, based on this anecdotal information, at least 95% of the lethal force incidents are entirely justified.

  2. Quite a number of libertarian public intellectuals who were not themselves lawyers thought it was logically sound to take the high rate of plea bargains as prima facie evidence of the inherent and widespread abusive injustice of the criminal justice system, which must obviously be using the threat of much harsher sentences at trial to coerce a lot of innocent people into confessing to crimes they didn’t commit.

    Some also said that any advice from a public defender to take such deals was practically sufficient evidence for insufficiency of counsel, which must be because the system purposefully doesn’t compensate defenders enough, or gives them too much to do, in order to stack the deck against defendants. (They never ask how much the assistant district attorney prosecutors have to do).

    In reality, because of lots of video and other digital records (e.g., everyone carrying the world’s most awesome surveillance device around with them 24/7 and voluntarily giving it all their secrets) a lot of criminals are caught red-handed. In a sane legal system, the trial could be done at low cost, extemporaneously, in 5 minutes, “here is comprehensive and incontrovertible video of the defendant swiping the merchandise and walking out of the store without paying for it”.

    That’s not to say that there are not big problems with the plea bargain system, but that mass coercion of innocents isn’t one of them.

    In particular, no one should ever be able to plea to a lesser charge, which distorts our understanding of underlying criminal activity rates.
    Before bargaining, a prosecutor should have to register the preferral of charges with the court. Any bargain either admits to everything, or, in any failure to reach a deal, the prosecutor can charge no more than what was on the registered sheet.

    • “Quite a number of libertarian public intellectuals who were not themselves lawyers thought it was logically sound to take the high rate of plea bargains as prima facie evidence of the inherent and widespread abusive injustice of the criminal justice system,”

      This non-lawyer, libertarian thought the opposite. My, non-expert, knowledge was that most people who were arrested for a crime took the plea deal if they were guilty. The majority of people who refuse the deal and go to trial are either innocent or gambling that the jury will find them innocent.

  3. It’s a real-life prisoner’s dilemma; if every one of the accused demands a jury trial, the system will be reformed of necessity.

  4. “Quite a number of libertarian public intellectuals who were not themselves lawyers thought it was logically sound to take the high rate of plea bargains as prima facie evidence of the inherent and widespread abusive injustice of the criminal justice system”

    They certainly did (without any evidence whatsoever). Sometimes, proving your street cred and commitment to the cause outweighs the more complicated issues. Everyone always loves the blame the “criminal justice system” for all that ails society. Such an easy target.

Comments are closed.