Arguments Against Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is occasionally referred to as a form of “backdoor justice.” This is because plea bargains, which make up a vast majority of criminal proceedings, occur outside of the courtroom. They happen before or during a trial and often the reasons are unknown to anyone not directly involved in the case. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld plea bargaining as constitutional in Brady v. United States. This tactic can work to the advantage of criminal defendants and their attorneys, yet can also lead to certain abuses of the system on the part of the defense, each of which will be addressed in turn. First, from a legal standpoint, taking a plea bargain means that a defendant waives his right to trial which presents an issue upon appeal. Second,

In fact, figuring out a non-legal issue for this problem in our group was a problem in and of itself However, outside of the legal context plea bargains still present problems, Defendants who accept plea deals are not nearly as publicly stigmatized for their crimes which can lead to a criminal to feel a certain sense of elusiveness about punishment for his crimes. Devers (2011) states, “ While being found innocent or being acquitted is, of course, the best way for defendants to avoid jail time and other penalties, going to trial is perceived as risky, because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. As a result, many defendants enter pleas” (p. 1). Thus plea bargains can ultimately lead to repeat offenders committing crime again. This issue was not an easy one for our group to solve, however eventually we came to realize that a solution was simpler than it seemed; make plea bargains public record. In this way, defendants would be limited in their seemingly unending ability to abuse the plea deal system Publicizing plea bargains after they are decided would allow a greater public understanding to the general population as well as give rise to the opportunity for overarching policy