Coercive plea bargaining happens when a person has no legal representation, or inadequate representation. Time wasters going to trial when they know the evidence against them is solid happens where the defendant has money to waste on an expensive lawyer.
So given that the whole discussion was about how people in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to get criminal records, the point you've added merely backs up the assertion that the US criminal justice system is unfairly skewed against the poor.
If you're assuming that the arrested people have not committed the crime, maybe.
I'm just pointing out that a lot of people have actually done the crime.
Otherwise it's interesting that there are so many crimes committed and yet the people who are arrested, haven't committed them.
Where did you get that idea? There are many opportunities for people who want to get out of poverty. It's more about motivation. Look at politicians who grew up poor. There is no one designing neighborhoods to keep the poor down.
Erm it's not exactly easy to simply get out of poverty.
and as for designing neighborhoods to keep people poor, consider that in the US the funding for schooling in poor neighbourhoods is often far less than in more prosperous ones*.
That alone makes it far harder to "get out of poverty" as it means you're less likely to do well in your education (a lot of the politicians who started off in poverty in the UK got a good education free, including heavily subsidised higher education).
It's also hard to get out of a poverty stricken area if you have no money to move, or have commitments in that area.
There are a lot of places in the US where the poor who might be fully employed may not even have the money to pay for petrol to leave the area in the event of a disaster (IIRC one of the reasons so many people where hurt in Katrina was because they couldn't afford to get out).
It's a fairly nasty circle, the education system etc is poor in an area so it gets a high number of low skilled/poorly educated people, which means that the better paid jobs aren't available because the companies that offer them don't want to be based in an area without the skills they need.
*There were also issues when during the 60's as the federal government started forcing equal rights upon the states that some areas effectively took the view that if they were going to be forced to allow coloured people use public facilities they would rather sell them off cheap or if unable to do that, demolish them than comply (they were actively filling in swimming pools adjacent to black neighbourhoods as an example rather than letting them in - the result is that you're about 4 times more likely to drown as a black child than a white one even today as there is nowhere to learn to swim for huge numbers of people in historically black aras).
Erm it's not exactly easy to simply get out of poverty.
and as for designing neighborhoods to keep people poor, consider that in the US the funding for schooling in poor neighbourhoods is often far less than in more prosperous ones*.
That alone makes it far harder to "get out of poverty" as it means you're less likely to do well in your education (a lot of the politicians who started off in poverty in the UK got a good education free, including heavily subsidised higher education).
It's also hard to get out of a poverty stricken area if you have no money to move, or have commitments in that area.
There are a lot of places in the US where the poor who might be fully employed may not even have the money to pay for petrol to leave the area in the event of a disaster (IIRC one of the reasons so many people where hurt in Katrina was because they couldn't afford to get out).
It's a fairly nasty circle, the education system etc is poor in an area so it gets a high number of low skilled/poorly educated people, which means that the better paid jobs aren't available because the companies that offer them don't want to be based in an area without the skills they need.
*There were also issues when during the 60's as the federal government started forcing equal rights upon the states that some areas effectively took the view that if they were going to be forced to allow coloured people use public facilities they would rather sell them off cheap or if unable to do that, demolish them than comply (they were actively filling in swimming pools adjacent to black neighbourhoods as an example rather than letting them in - the result is that you're about 4 times more likely to drown as a black child than a white one even today as there is nowhere to learn to swim for huge numbers of people in historically black aras).
I disagree because I work in a poor neighborhood (by choice) and there are definitely opportunities to get ahead. There are many colleges who want minority students who do well or moderately well. Black women in my city make more than white women.
You're harking back to the 1960's. It's now 2016 and if people don't work their health insurance pays for them to join a health club where there's a pool.
Most whites neighborhoods don't have pools. Not sure where you are even talking about.
Yes it takes motivation by parents and steering kids in the right direction.
Comments
If you're assuming that the arrested people have not committed the crime, maybe.
I'm just pointing out that a lot of people have actually done the crime.
Otherwise it's interesting that there are so many crimes committed and yet the people who are arrested, haven't committed them.
Erm it's not exactly easy to simply get out of poverty.
and as for designing neighborhoods to keep people poor, consider that in the US the funding for schooling in poor neighbourhoods is often far less than in more prosperous ones*.
That alone makes it far harder to "get out of poverty" as it means you're less likely to do well in your education (a lot of the politicians who started off in poverty in the UK got a good education free, including heavily subsidised higher education).
It's also hard to get out of a poverty stricken area if you have no money to move, or have commitments in that area.
There are a lot of places in the US where the poor who might be fully employed may not even have the money to pay for petrol to leave the area in the event of a disaster (IIRC one of the reasons so many people where hurt in Katrina was because they couldn't afford to get out).
It's a fairly nasty circle, the education system etc is poor in an area so it gets a high number of low skilled/poorly educated people, which means that the better paid jobs aren't available because the companies that offer them don't want to be based in an area without the skills they need.
*There were also issues when during the 60's as the federal government started forcing equal rights upon the states that some areas effectively took the view that if they were going to be forced to allow coloured people use public facilities they would rather sell them off cheap or if unable to do that, demolish them than comply (they were actively filling in swimming pools adjacent to black neighbourhoods as an example rather than letting them in - the result is that you're about 4 times more likely to drown as a black child than a white one even today as there is nowhere to learn to swim for huge numbers of people in historically black aras).
I disagree because I work in a poor neighborhood (by choice) and there are definitely opportunities to get ahead. There are many colleges who want minority students who do well or moderately well. Black women in my city make more than white women.
You're harking back to the 1960's. It's now 2016 and if people don't work their health insurance pays for them to join a health club where there's a pool.
Most whites neighborhoods don't have pools. Not sure where you are even talking about.
Yes it takes motivation by parents and steering kids in the right direction.