This has been BUGGING me for a long time so I finally got around to looking it up..
I found this & have provided a link below..
The Case Against
BY TIMOTHY LYNCH
I'm not here to protect criminals.. But maybe the reason they ARE criminals is because they are f'ing STUPID to begin with..
The founding fathers
THE RISE AND FALL OF ADVERSARIAL TRIALS
Because any person who is accused of violating the criminal
law can lose his liberty, and perhaps even his life depending on
the offense and prescribed penalty, the Framers of the Constitution took pains to put explicit limits on the awesome powers of government. The Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees several safeguards to the accused, including the right to be informed of the charges, the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense allegedly took place, the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses, the right to call witnesses on one’s own behalf, and the right to the assistance of counsel.
As most of you reading this likely already know I hate the status quo.. So what better way to destroy it than for every criminal, regardless of the crime committed, to exercise their rights as provided by the United States constitution?
F plea bargains.. don't be f'ing STUPID! Don't let them "scare" you.. Take EVERY criminal charge before a jury! STOP volunteering to go to jail you f'ing idiots..
"More than 90 percent of the criminal cases in America are never tried, much less proven, to juries. The overwhelming majority of individuals
who are accused of crime forgo their constitutional rights and
Plea bargaining has come to dominate the administration of justice in America.
According to one legal scholar, “Every two seconds during a typical workday, a criminal case is disposed of in an American courtroom by way of a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea.” Even though plea bargaining pervades the justice system, I argue that the practice should be abolished because it is unconstitutional.
Continue reading Cato Institute - PDF