Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The pros and cons of plea bargaining
Good faith and plea bargaining
Effectiveness of plea bargaining
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The pros and cons of plea bargaining
Karol Mooshe Plea Bargain The plea bargain is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This shouldn’t be used for numerous reasons for example innocent people end up going to jail, people that are actually guilty getting less time in jail, and the rights of the defendant should be protected.
When an innocent person is charged with a crime that they didn’t commit it’s obvious that they’d fight back, but sometimes some of the evidence held against them could be too strong, or the case just isn’t going in their favor and the only place to turn to is the plea bargain, now some may see that as being a good thing but it’s not. This is awful because they should have a fair case, where they are heard, and the evidence is true. If the defendant is innocent and the case is looking like they’re gonna lose and it’s a crime that can have many years to it they’d be forced to say they committed to something
…show more content…
This is especially terrible knowing that once that person serves the time that was offered rather than the time they deserve they’ll be out committing more crimes. They may not even learn their lesson not to commit that or any crime at all again, and some may say that no matter how much time you give someone they may never change their mind and still be the same, although this may be true, the longer the punishment the more time they’re in a place where they’re isolated hopefully giving them time to think about what they’ve done, and prisons aren’t a great place so they’d most likely not want to come back, the longer they’d stay the more they’d see the horrible conditions. Some criminals actually don’t serve any time because of the plea
Plea bargaining precludes justice from being achieved, where the consent to less severe sentences are given in favour of time and money. The case of R v Rogerson and McNamara, demonstrates the advantages of hiring highly trained legal personnel, which inevitably contributed to their lesser sentence. Thus, making it more difficult for offenders to be convicted.
A plea bargain is compliance between a prosecutor and defendant in which the accused offender agrees to plead guilty in return for some compromise from the prosecutor. The New Jim Crow, explains how most Americans have no clue on how common it is for people to be prosecuted without proper legal representation and are sentenced to jail when innocent out of fear. Tens of thousands of poor people go to jail every year without ever talking to a lawyer that could possibly help them. Over four decades ago, the American Supreme Court ruled that low-income people who are accused of serious crimes are entitled to council, but thousands of people are processed through America’s courts annually with a low resource lawyer, or no lawyer at all. Sometimes
Plea bargaining describes a deal between the prosecutor and the defense attorney, who represents the defendant, that they negotiate a deal for either a lesser conviction or a lesser se...
Every civilization in history has had rules, and citizens who break them. To this day governments struggle to figure out the best way to deal with their criminals in ways that help both society and those that commit the crimes. Imprisonment has historically been the popular solution. However, there are many instances in which people are sent to prison that would be better served for community service, rehab, or some other form of punishment. Prison affects more than just the prisoner; the families, friends, employers, and communities of the incarcerated also pay a price. Prison as a punishment has its pros and cons; although it may be necessary for some, it can be harmful for those who would be better suited for alternative means of punishment.
Plea bargaining is an agreement between the Crown and the defendant in a criminal case. The Crown gives the accused an opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge for a lighter sentence or; to the same charge with a lighter sentence than the maximum sentence the Crown would have sought in a trial setting. There are numerous reasons why an accused would accept a plea bargain and why the Crown would offer one. One of the
A plea bargain is determined good for someone based only on their facts and conditions of their case. A disadvantage of plea bargaining is actually admitting the guilt (Understanding). Plea bargains appear to only benefit the criminal because they ultimately receive a lesser punishment. A plea bargain might seem good now but it could have permanent impact on your life. An innocent person would most likely not want to plead guilty but could feel the pressure from lawyers to enter a plea just to avoid a lengthy and costly trial. Even if the innocent person accepts a plea with no jail time, they will still have the conviction on their record. I believe all cases should go to jury trail regardless of the time and cost because in all fairness it is the nest shot at finding the true criminal and issuing the appropriate punishment. Shamim Ebrahimi’s advice regarding plea bargains is, “Focus on the big picture, and make sure you are aware of your options and possible collateral consequences because, remember, plea bargains almost always require a defendant to plead guilty on the record, and more often than not that record will follow you around for the rest of your life”
criminal justice system is considered to be adversarial and complex; that is there are two sides essentially competing for victory amidst a maze of multiple potential legal ramifications (Patton, 2013). Gideon was designed to ensure that every defendant involved in the process received a fair trial. Since the government hires lawyers to put defendants on trial, it is only fair that defendants receive legal representation in order to ensure the trial is balanced on both sides (Patton, 2013). The reality is that since the Gideon ruling, the number of cases going to trial has substantially decreased. In 1963, the number of federal criminal defense cases that went to trial was at fifteen percent. As of 2013, that number has dropped to 2.7 percent (Patton, 2013). This is not a reflection of an overall reduction in crime or an overall reduction in the number of charges found to have enough evidence to proceed to trial, but an increase in the amount of plea bargains (Patton,
Plea bargaining saves the court a lot of time by a case not going to trial. If the case doesn’t go to trial it also saves the criminal justice system a lot of money (CJ Interactive Multi-Media, 2014). This allows for the local, state, or Federal government to save on resources they would need to use if every case went to trial. It also saves on how much resources needs to go into the criminal justice system (CJ Interactive Multi-Media, 2014). The courts are all ready over loaded with cases and many have become extremely backlogged. By people plea bargaining it helps resolve the case faster and helps bring down the number of back logged cases in court. A plea bargain also saves on all parties having to go through a trial (CJ Interactive Multi-Media, 2014). Some trials can take up to several months and the outcome of the trial is very unpredictable. Plea barging can also help law enforcement get information they can use about other criminal activities (CJ Interactive Multi-Media,
The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals set a limit that each criminal defense attorney can take 150 felony cases per year, but “caseloads of 500, 600, 800, or more are common” (“Five Problems”). With that, criminal defense attorneys are forced to triage or reject cases, leaving potential clients to go to court without representation. If the defendant does have a public attorney, their defense is unprepared and vulnerable to make mistakes when working out a reasonable sentence. In one of his cases, Jones and his client accepted a deal with the prosecution for a three year sentence for stealing locks. Upon further investigation, the prosecution discovered that they made a mistake in calculating the minimum sentence – Jones’s client should have only served “366 days,” but it was already too late (Eckholm).
This case study is about analyzing a decision-making process that was found in The Night of TV show, episode 4 “ The Art of War”. Where Nasir “ Naz” Khan, the main character in the show is having a deal plea in a case where all evidence is against him. Here, Naz has to choose between taking the plea deal or rejecting it. By accepting the plea deal, Naz his sentence would be reduced to 15 years instead of a lifetime. Indeed, Naz would have to admit to a murder that he did not commit. Another outcome for pleading guilty is that his family, most probably, would not know for sure that he is not a murderer. On the other hand, by rejecting the plea deal, Naz would be taking risks of a lifetime sentence if the jury found him
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
Instead, these individuals are subjected to the structural violence of the system, and are largely given “life without possibility of parole” sentences. No matter how remorseful they are, how much they have learned, or how young and naive they were when the crime was committed, these individuals will never get the chance to live a different type of life.
The system has gone as deep as to making it so that even if a person has not committed a crime, but is being charged for it they can agree to a plea bargain, which makes it so even though the person did not do it the system is going to have them convicted of it anyway (Quigley 1). “As one young man told me ‘who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn’t do?” (Quigley 2). The criminal justice system has scared the majority of the population into believing that even though they did not commit a crime, they are convicted of it.
...ct that in less serious crimes the defendant will plead guilty in order to receive a better deal.
...nts that they feel they often have no choice but to plea guilty and accept the bargain. Prosecutors can exploit the consequences produced by adversarial legalism in a way that allows them to process a high volume of cases and obtain a large number of guilty pleas. The systematic changes to civil and criminal law in an attempt to avoid the negative outcomes of adversarial legalism only makes the system less useful for citizens.