Plan B Forum

A former Rutgers University student charged after allegedly spying on a classmate who then committed suicide has reached a deal with prosecutors.

Two counts of invasion of privacy against Molly Wei will be dropped if she co-operates with the prosecution of another student, Dharun Ravi.

Ms Wei and Mr Ravi are accused of using a webcam to spy on Tyler Clementi, 18, during a homosexual encounter. He then jumped to his death from a bridge.

Mr Ravi denies the charges against him.

Under the deal agreed with prosecutors in New Jersey, Ms Wei was accepted into a pre-trial intervention programme and must comply with a series of conditions.

The 19-year-old could avoid serving time in prison and have her criminal record erased in three years if she co-operates with prosecutors, completes 300 hours of community service and holds a job, the Associated Press reports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13319882

So is she getting let off a jail sentence if she grases on the other person? Isn't that a bit mad?

It happens all the time. A deal is made with one defendant in order to bolster the case against another.

yep; look at the big organized crime cases where one guy goes to jail and the other lives well in the witness relocation program. Pretty much the same, but I'murprised juries s easily accept the word of the rewarded witness and convict the other party; my general inclination would be to discount/disregard anything that person said.

But Big RR they're under oath...

And...

Exactly...

Big RR wrote:I'murprised juries s easily accept the word of the rewarded witness and convict the other party; my general inclination would be to discount/disregard anything that person said.

Never having sat on a jury, I don't know whether juries easily accept the truth of the testimony of accomplices who flip on their partners in crime. Certainly the defence attorney will always do their best to pick apart the credibility of such witnesses. But if what they are saying is corroborated by other evidence, and provides the best explanation for what happened in light of all the known facts...

I think it is the case in most common law jurisdictions that someone cannot be convicted solely on the basis of uncorroborated accomplice testimony. I know that in the last few years Italy has become rather pissed because the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and maybe some other countries have refused to extradite suspects in mafia activities because the entirety of the evidence against them was the testimony of accomplices who had entered into plea bargains.

Seems a bit mad to me, a "get out of jail free" card for someone guilty.

Deferred imposition of sentence with strict probation and the opportunity to earn the removal of the felony conviction from one's record is a sentencing option for first offenders accused of a range of crimes in most US jurisdictions. What is described in the OP article is essentially a deferred prosecution, wherein the charges are dismissed but can be refiled within the statute of limitations should the offender go astray of the conditions mandated by the prosecutor.

I generally only offer DPAs or deferred imposition of sentence (this is where the charge is not dismissed and the Court accepts a guilty plea, which will later be converted to not guilty with charge(s) dismissed), to youthful first offenders, as I think a person whose first felony act occurs much later in life should have known better by virtue of age/wisdom. However, every circumstance is different, which is why I'm grateful to have prosecutorial discretion to exercise judiciously.

I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice. ~ Abraham Lincoln