Off topic; but interesting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff
  • Start date Start date
Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
instead of going to trial.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
MAYBE - in the long run it is cheaper and easier. Just a guess.

BChat

Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
instead of going to trial.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Maybe that's why they need more income from the new OS - BG took a large
part of it, and now it's losing cases around the world.

If it still couldn't learn from the lessons, I can only see more will be
followed.
 
Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
instead of going to trial.
Click to expand...

Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
cost less than winning the case.

However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
their way.

It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.
 
Richard said:
Why does a person, who knows he is innocent, plea bargain for a sentence -
instead of going to trial.
Click to expand...

As hundreds of people have been released from Death Row due to DNA
proving them innocent, one can surmise that the legal system in the USA
isn't exactly a sure thing, even if you're innocent.

Alias
 
Never thought about it.

Thanks!!!

arachnid said:
Because he doesn't have the money to fight the case. For a business the
size of Microsoft, it's more often a question of whether settling will
cost less than winning the case.

However "cost" doesn't just mean legal fees. Microsoft has become heavily
dependent on some legal gray areas such as whether they're actually
selling you a license (as they claim and some courts agree with) or a copy
of Windows (as other courts say). It would so totally wreck their business
plans if any of this were settled to their disfavor in a higher court that
they won't risk a judgement unless absolutely everything is going
their way.

It's not just Microsoft that does this. The media industry works this
way, too. If they can't win, they settle out of court and bury the
evidence and testimony by having the records sealed as part of the
settlement. They only stay with the case if they're hands-down winning. So
they're almost always either settling out of court, or winning. The
settlements cost them money but don't establish any legal precedent like
losing would. Eventually they accumulate enough wins to turn the gray area
into a solid string of legal precedents in their favor.
Click to expand...
 
Ah,
But if settling out of court doesn't establish a legal precedent; isn't
the matter still up in the air?
To be decided;eventually?
And;if out of court settlements;don't establish a precedent; couldn't
they theoretically; keep getting sued; and settling without gaining
anything?

Jeff
 
Also,
Doesn't settling out of court; itself; become a pattern;where one would
look to these settlements;and say;Hmmm
Don't they;in themselves;start to set up precedents?
I can understand one or two out of court settlements;but now MSFT is
looking at least three;same issue.
Just asking;cuz I don't know.
It would seem to me; if I were a judge; that I would take these out of
court settlements into consideration.
Again; don't know; that's why I'm asking.

Jeff
 
I am not a lawyer, but I somehow grabbed the idea from arachnid's
explanations for why they're doing this.

So in order to establish a legal precedent, one would need a strong case and
do not accept settlement and then force the case going to trial.

Once the judgment is ruled against their favor, it then becomes a legal
precedent to be followed.

It can be overly simplified as the process can be very complicated, but I
guess that should be the tactic for doing it.
 
No! Because if he fights and looses, the punishment could likely be a lot
more sever.

You cut your loses and pray.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Ah, But if settling out of court doesn't establish a legal precedent;
isn't the matter still up in the air?
Click to expand...

Yes. But that's often fine for a company that exploits the gray areas.
Gray is OK and a favorable ruling is OK. What they don't want is a
courtroom clarification that goes against them.
To be decided;eventually?
Click to expand...

Yep, but it's a matter of choosing your opponents. If you get sued
by another corporation with a lot of legal firepower, you cave and settle
out of court. The ideal to sue, or get sued by, some lone idealist with
relatively little money and an overconfident attorney.

BTW I'm no legal expert. I just lurk around Groklaw.net a lot. It's
a good way to learn how our legal system works (or doesn't work, as the
case may be).
And;if out of court settlements;don't establish a precedent;
couldn't they theoretically; keep getting sued; and settling without
gaining anything?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of the cost of settling versus the cost of setting a losing
precedent. All these settlements cost relatively little as a percentage of
Microsoft's total income (just look at their obscene bank account). On the
other hand, it would be utterly disastrous for Microsoft if the US Supreme
Court ruled that consumers are indeed buying the software and not just a
license, and therefore aren't bound by the EULA.
 
I can tell you why in the US:

1) FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence) are written by DOJ and signed off by a
Judicial Conference composed of judges who are former US Attornys and then
approved by a Congress who has approved a panpoloy of unconstitutional laws,
and the current majority is a lacky for DOJ. This will be changed soon.

2) FRE are stacked against the defense bar.

3) For the same reason that Jack Abramoff who is singing like a canary right
now has set a precedent by getting a regular desk at the FBI in D.C. that he
reports to every day to snitch on his Republican former home boys and girls
including his former employee who was dismissed from the White House only
after an investigation revealed that she brokered Abramoff into the White
House to peddle influence 465 times.

4) If convicted at trial, under rules that currently have the conviction
rate at 94% and with the government using your money for unlimitted
resources he can do 20X+ as much time as he does under the plea and in
conditions that are considerably worse than Richard Urban's current ones.

CH
 
Because sometimes it's cheaper than trying to defend themselves, especially
in corporate law. Plus, many of the vouchers offered will never be used or
claimed, so the real cost is often considerably less than what is published.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
Back
Top