Plea Bargain Analysis

Bohm & Hanley (2011, pg. 309) openly classify three basic types of plea bargains. The first type of plea bargain is that defendants may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Additionally, the second plea bargain allows, at the request of a prosecutor, a defendant that pleads guilty may receive a lighter sentence than what the crime originally called for. While, the third plea bargain allows defendants that plead guilty to one charge, get other charges that maybe brought later dropped as promise by the prosecutor. Indubitably, there are many factors prosecutors consider when deciding whether to offer a plea bargain and which of the three will be most beneficial. Bohm & Hanley (2011), states the three most notable factors are the seriousness

of the offense, the defendants criminal history and the position of the prosecutor in plea negotiations (pg. 309). Therefore, the interest served or not by offering a plea bargain is usually determined in the deliberations process done by the persecutor.
Predominantly, because there is no statute of limitations for plea-bargaining, it is custom do to the mutual interest plea bargains serves or mutuality of advantage. A plea bargain serves the most purpose in the best interest of courts by reducing unknown uncertainty (Bohm & Hanley, 2011, pg.310). The unknown is usually the uncertainty of the timeframe of a criminal trial; therefore, plea bargains will result in the eliminating or need for a trail to take place (Bohm & Hanley, 2011, pg.310. In fact, plea-bargaining also serves the interests of individuals in the administration of justice by guaranteeing prosecutors high conviction rates. (Bohm & Hanley, 2011, pg. 310). As a result, plea bargaining serves the interest of judges by reducing their caseloads in court and free up time to focus on more serious cases (Bohm & Hanley, 2011, pg. 310). Likewise, plea bargaining also serves the interest of criminal defense attorneys by allowing them to spend less time on each case, avoid trails and prevent waste of resources by also helping criminal defendants that cannot afford an attorney, due to lack of funds, get lesser sentencing than carried by law for the crime (Bohm & Hanley, 2011, pg. 310). In turn, some criminals get to avoid public embarrassment via media outlets and avoid other dangerous inmates or potential threats. While other criminals accepting guilty pleas avoid jail time altogether, depending on the crime.