More handpicked essays just for you.
The pros and cons of plea bargaining
Controversial issues with plea bargaining
Controversial issues with plea bargaining
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Plea bargaining is the term used to describe the negotiations between prosecuting attorneys and the attorneys for defendants in which is a guilty plea is offered in exchange for a reduction in charges or a lesser sentence. The textbook describes the practice of plea bargaining as being an absolutely essential component of our criminal justice system because without it “our entire criminal justice system would probably collapse”. It bases this assertion on the fact that our courts are ill equipped to handle 1.2 million trials annually. The book also describes the chief criticism of plea bargaining as being the perception that it allows offenders off with a “slap on the wrist”.
There is nothing factually inaccurate about the textbook’s analysis of plea bargaining. It is true
…show more content…
The single most important component required of any analysis of plea bargaining in this country is completely ignored: coercive bargaining, also known as overcharging.
The main criticism of plea bargaining is not, as the text concludes, the perception that it is too lenient. On the contrary, the principal problem with the prevalence of plea bargaining is that it has become a mechanism for leveraging a guilty plea for charges that the state would be unlikely to successfully prove at trial. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, the prevalence of plea bargaining “presents grave risks of prosecutorial overcharging that effectively compels an innocent defendant to avoid massive risk by pleading guilty to a lesser offense” (Lafler v. Cooper,
132 S.Ct. 1376, 1397 (2012)).
As I discussed in a previous Critical Thinking assignment, the shortest path to a conviction for a prosecutor is to leverage a plea by charging a defendant with as many charges as probable cause permits. Let me clear, I am not accusing overworked District Attorneys or law enforcement personnel of unethical or immoral behavior. I am simply describing the
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.
exposes many of the problems that face the Criminal Justice system, as well as reveals several
pleas may be choose for the punishment likely to be associated with them rather than for their accuracy in describing the criminal offense in which the defendant was involved. For instance, a charge of indecent liberties, for example, in which the defendant is accused of sexual
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,
Within the United State Supreme Court many tools are utilized to determine the final outcomes of cases. One of these tools is known as the “reasonable man/police officer” test. When it comes to keeping individuals out of the criminal justice system, the theory of deterrence is practiced. In this paper I will be discussing the importance of the “reasonable man/police officer” test and why it is used in the U.S. Supreme Court. I will also be discussing the importance of deterrence in our criminal justice system. Each of these two topics include different aspects that have to be recognized first in order to understand the overall concept. I will explain each topic, give an answer on why I agree and disagree and also provide supportive evidence for each of my points of view.
Plea bargains are highly prevalent in the popular television series Law and Order. If a random episode is chosen, there is a high chance that lawyers in the show have offered a plea bargain. While many people would believe that media skews the public’s understanding of how often plea bargains occur, however, this is actually an appropriate representation. According to Heumann, approximately 10% of criminal cases actually continue on to trial (Heumann, 1975). Similarly, as stated by Menkel-Meadow, plea bargains are the reason why there may be congestion in the courts, but a low number of criminals are actually jailed (Menkel-Meadow, 2005).
Most issues with plea bargaining relate to the deontological perspective (i.e. focusing on moral duties). According to Kantian ethics, there are two ways, identify the maxim and decide if the maxim should be made a universal law, in which one can identify if an action is morally permissible (Williams & Arrigo, 2012, p. 166). For example, the maxim of plea bargaining would go something like this: “One should allow all defendants to enter a guilty plea and thus waive their rights to a trial.” By agreeing with the statement above, if it becomes a universal law then it means that even innocent individuals can be convicted. Therefore, plea bargain and innocent individuals is the precise concern among some critics of plea bargaining. Innocent individuals who plead guilty receive a punishment that is not deserved and thus severe; therefore, the opposite of what the plea bargain practice is intended to do (Gorr, 2000, p. 140). However, the situation is often more complex then thought. Another ethical concern of plea bargaining is the duties of the attorneys. One of attorney’s ethical obligations is being honest with the defendant and thus ensuring that all guilty pleas are voluntary and appropriate (Yaroshefsky, 2008). Kantian ethics stresses never using individuals only as means to some end; therefore, straying away from
During my observation, the courtroom had its sections of prosecutors, defense attorneys, courtroom clerks, bailiffs, the judge and the families of the defendants who’s hearings where scheduled for that day. One thing I notice was once the defendants entered the courtroom; one of the clerks calls the defendants name and speaks to them in private along with the attorney they were appointed with. The defendant has the constitutional right to have an attorney present with them during their hearing and at trial. Majority of the cases that day were resolved with a plea bargain, which is the agreement between the defense and the prosecution in which the defendant pleads guilty to the charges and receives little punishment then what was initially given if the defendant decided to go to trial. One of the defendants was charged with DUI and property damage, as a result the defendant accepted a plea bargain of a
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.
Innocent or guilty courtroom decisions are often high-stakes. However, the precise consequences of the verdict is unknown in U.S. judicial systems when the guilt versus innocence decision is being made. Dixit and Nalebuff (1991) explain that this order of decision-making "can mean the difference between life and death, or even between conviction and acquittal" (p.
The plea bargaining process within our criminal justice system has numerous benefits to both the offender and the system, with the victim receiving the least amount of benefit as they rarely see justice served on their own terms. Firstly, this system allows offenders of lesser crimes to get out of jail or prison sooner, often times with less time served than if they were to have been convicted after a trial. The sad truth is that most defendants cannot afford to make bail to gather witnesses and evidence, nor can they afford to invest in a skilled, interested defense attorney. This forces them to seek an alternative resolution to keep from enduring from jail the months, or even years, long judicial process that comes with a criminal trial.
...ct that in less serious crimes the defendant will plead guilty in order to receive a better deal.
When people plea bargain in a trial it creates kind of a shallow grey area between how the criminal justice system is practiced and how it happens in real life. Plea bargaining is when the defendant chooses to plead guilty in hopes of a charge that will not be as bad, due to leniency, after a pre-arrangement between the defendant and prosecutor. Once the guilty plea is taken, instead of having the main attention on what happens with the judge and the jury, it shifts to what goes on with the defense counsel and prosecutor.
Often court cases our resolved by using a plea barging: the act of pleading guilty to lower their sentence or being convicted of a higher crime. The catch to plea bargaining is that have to surrender some of your rights. The rights you have to surrender include; right to trail with counsel, right to test the state’s evidence, right to call a witness, right to testify or remain silent, and the right to an appeal. I believe plea barging is worth the loss of rights when you are convicted of crimes like drug possession, they can lower your sentence and/or lower the severity of the crime. However, with a crime like murder, pleading guilty probably will not do much because the sentence is usually a life sentence and there is not much a court can