> I don't see how this follows. Given the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard needed for a conviction if I reject a plea bargain, I'd certainly never accept one for something I wasn't actually guilty of.

Perhaps an important part of the puzzle is the fact that it requires a significant amount of money to defend yourself in a full court trial, as well a significant amount of time.

Time during which the defendant's life is, essentially, on hold.

Additionally, while in the eyes of the legal system, an actual conviction is required, in the eyes of the public, a mere accusation is rather damningly destructive. Business relationships get ruined, opinions formed ("would not have been charged if they were truly innocent"), et cetera.

> it requires a significant amount of money to defend yourself in a full court trial

Isn't the point of public defenders to protect people who don't have this amount of money?

> Time during which the defendant's life is, essentially, on hold.

Isn't this only true in cases where bail isn't offered?

> "would not have been charged if they were truly innocent"

Who's actually ever said anything like that?

First of all plea bargains as currently practiced have been ruled unconstitutional. For example Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542-43 (1897)

Second, successfully defending a federal case takes an average of over a million dollars. And publicly talking about the case, for example to solicit donations from those you know to help you pay for it, is strongly frowned on my judges and you WILL be likely to lose because of it.

Third, if you choose to fight, you will face a sentence that is usually many multiples of the plea bargain. Considering the difference in resources available to you and the state, you are likely to lose. Even if you are innocent of the crime.

Fourth, it is true that the point of public defenders is supposed to be to protect people. But they are part of the system. Public defenders typically have dozens of clients at a time, and the more efficiently they can process them, the better they do. The vast majority of the time this means efficiently negotiating a good plea bargain for you, and convincing you to take it. A public defender who lightly lets you exercise your right to trial will quickly fall behind on your other clients, so they try to avoid that.

Fifth, people who are out on bail are very much not free. They typically must suffer arbitrary inspections, follow curfew, avoid being in a variety of places where other criminals might be, and so on. You aren't behind jail bars, but you're still made to feel a prisoner.

I used to think as you do. But after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz committed suicide, I became curious and learned a lot about the system. And the more I learned the worse it looked.

> And publicly talking about the case, for example to solicit donations from those you know to help you pay for it, is strongly frowned on my judges and you WILL be likely to lose because of it.

I've never heard of such a thing, despite a lot of people crowdfunding legal defenses. Can you provide an example of it happening?

> you are likely to lose. Even if you are innocent of the crime.

I think this is our fundamental disagreement. I think it's very rare that an innocent person who goes to trial ends up being convicted.

> Fifth, people who are out on bail are very much not free. They typically must suffer arbitrary inspections, follow curfew, avoid being in a variety of places where other criminals might be, and so on.

I know curfews and inspections are ordered sometimes, but are they really "typical"?

> I used to think as you do. But after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz committed suicide, I became curious and learned a lot about the system. And the more I learned the worse it looked.

I thought Aaron Swartz actually did break the laws he was accused of breaking, and the reason that what happened to him was unjust was that the laws he broke were unfair (e.g., violating ToS being a felony). I see his case being an argument to repeal or gut such laws, and an argument in favor of jury nullification, but not to change how plea bargains work.

> First of all plea bargains as currently practiced have been ruled unconstitutional. For example Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542-43 (1897)

That...is not an example. The Court in Bram did not have before it a question about “plea bargains as current practiced”. Or plea bargains at all, arising, as it did, out of a case in which the defendant had plead not guilty, been tried, and been convicted after trial.