I really like how this works on both the metaphorical level of extracting the tooth and the literal (an very visceral as someone who hated going to the the orthodontist) level of torturing someone by taking a pair of pliers to their mouth.
With proper interrogation techniques you can get 100% of people to confess, whether guilty or innocent.
We want a justice system that has a 90-95% accuracy rate (5-10 innocents in prison per 100 guilty).
Interrogations provide 0% innocence of guilt or innocence, but if relied upon for a conviction, create many more convictions. As such, they result in more false convictions than true convictions, skewing our justice system away from our ideal 95% accuracy rate.
Who’s “we”, and why does he think 95% is ideal? Ideal would be 100% convictions, none of them false. Why on earth would anyone think that convicting an innocent man for each 20 sentenced is ideal? The only reasons I can think of are highly unpleasant. Convicting over a hundred thousand innocent people isn’t justice.
I do hope we get to the reality of the Plea Bargain soon.
The State is allowed to throw its weight around quite a bit in different ways – delaying the trial, rescheduling, changing jurisdictions, misusing RICO statutes, endless (garbage) motions… Just to make you use up your (finite) resources, so you cannot afford to fight them any more.
I think there must be a fix, but cannot determine it, when we are dealing with MORAL people – let alone the immoral ones looking for a career-builder, or even just a notch on their belt.