>Here is a bail payment fund, which finds that 55% of their clients, who were in jail and would stay there because they couldn't afford bail, are not found guilty (which may mean the charges are just dropped) after their bail is paid. (I've seen similar numbers from the local bail fund I volunteer with, but don't have actual figures available to share). However, the vast majority of people do not have access to any such assistance, and 92% of people held in jail and unable to afford their bail plead guilty. Because the clients who have access to a bail fund are selected almost randomly (basically by having a court appointed lawyer who knows about the bail fund application and submits their case while the fund has available cash) we can take that as very simple evidence that many of those pleading guilty were innocent. There's definitely more detailed work available, probably cited in the articles above.

I see where you’re going with this, but it really doesn’t imply what you’re saying it does. First it’s unlikely that access to the bail funds is actually random. It’s very likely that defense lawyers are more willing to go out of their way to find bail money for clients who they believe are actually innocent.

It’s also likely that many of the 55% that are found not guilty are actually guilty, but there isn’t enough evidence to convict. Prosecutors tend to move slower when defendant isn’t in custody and cases can go stale, so people out on bail are less likely to be convicted. If a guilty person pleads guilty, despite the fact that there wasn’t enough evidence for a conviction, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. The person wasn’t “screwed”. The ethical dilemma arises when an innocent person is wrongfully convicted, or wrongfully admits guilt. The numbers you gave don’t show the rate at which that happens.

>This is disappointingly uninformed. The way to forgo a trial is to not hold a trial. What do you think happens, they say "excuse me sir, you can't afford bail and you say you are innocent, would you like to go home til we get around to doing something or stay here in jail?"

There is no universal right in any country I’m aware of to avoid jail while awaiting trial. Bail is a privilege. The problem is that the privilege is unfairly dispensed, not that it is inherently immoral to make someone wait in custody for their trial. Telling someone that if they voluntarily admit guilt, they can avoid waiting in jail for a trial isn’t the same thing as incarcerating someone without a trial.

>Here are just a few cases:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/06/12/the-man-who-sp....
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2018/12/28/an-anchorage-fami.... (father was in jail for three years before charges were dismissed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
https://pix11.com/2018/10/09/judge-dismisses-all-charges-aga...

All of these cases are extraordinary. They make the news specifically because they aren’t the norm. You’re first example even has “extraordinary tale of justice delayed and denied.” as a subheader.

In the Jerry Hartfield case he was released despite being convicted of murder because the trial was delayed for such an extremely long time. Had the trial taken place when it was supposed to, he’d probably still be in jail.

The second case doesn’t have much information beyond a single sentence. In the 3rd case, Kalief Browder’s family settled a lawsuit with the city, got cash and an agreement to close Reikers and stop putting people under 21 in solitary confinement.

Regardless, you are offering proof for a narrow claim: There are people who are coerced into pleading guilty--they exist. And using it as evidence for a much stronger claim: The majority of prisoners have been screwed into pleading guilty.

There are problems with our criminal justice system. Black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive harsher sentences. It’s a complete and utter travesty--we should do better.

However, it’s not close to a system where the majority of prisoners have been denied due process. You can criticism our system without making a moral equivalence to a totalitarian regime.