A negotiation, a contract, and many more ways used to describe the Criminal Justice System’s notion of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining has been around for a long time, but it is not until recent times that the use of a plea bargain has become a common practice. Defendants are given the chance to plead guilty for a lesser sentence and thus waive their right to trial. However, certain concerns relating to the actual guilt of defendants and the professionalism of the attorneys assigned to a case arise from an ethical stand point. Solutions offered to improve the practice of plea bargaining are often in two extremes. In one extreme, some argue for abolishment. In the other extreme, some state that plea bargaining simply needs to be reformed. …show more content…
The initial development of plea bargaining is often unclear; however, the practice itself has been traced back to the 1400s. The notion of a lesser sentence for agreeing to plead guilty was made present in a 1485 English statute (Palmer, 1999, p. 509). It was not until the early 1900s that plea bargaining sought an increase in use. In the 1920s, all felony convictions resulted in 85% guilty pleas (Palmer 1999, p. 510). Although the number of guilty pleas as result of a plea bargain was extremely high during the 1920s, it was not until the late 1960s-early 1970s that plea bargaining gained approval and established a common pattern that is still present today. There are several reasons for the popularity of plea bargain in the 1960s. One especially important reason is the increased number of criminal activity, often called the “crime wave,” which is often related to the heighten number of drug use (Palmer, 1999, p. 510). In other words conducting a trial for every offense was near impossible if the court system was to be efficient and thus plea bargaining emerged as a popular method among courts. As a result, “In 1971, the United States Supreme Court specifically accepted plea bargaining as part of the criminal justice system” (Palmer, 1999, p. 510). Furthermore, recent times has shown the expediential growth of plea bargaining. For example, from state cases about 94% are a result of a plea bargain (Schmalleger, 2015, p. 318). Although plea bargaining is a common practice, there is still discontent from some people. Discontent concerning plea bargaining often stems from the ethical concerns relating to the defendant and the ethical obligations of the attorneys involved.
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 …show more content…
manipulating or coercing someone into making a decision (William & Arrigo, 2012, p. 171). However, plea bargaining is often seen as practicality over justice. In other words, sometimes attorneys, both prosecutors and defense, are willing to get a guilty plea at the expense of the defendant if it means continuing the efficiency of the judicial system. According to Michael Gorr (2000), “the prosecutor is proposing to worsen the defendant’s situation no matter what the latter does” (p. 135). Meaning that the defendant might feel forced to accept a plea bargain because it is the lesser of two evils. Nonetheless, there are several methods as to which improve the practice of plea bargaining. There are several ways as to which plea bargaining can be reformed. Some argue for the abolishment of plea bargaining; however, the court system and thus the Criminal Justice System would be overflowed with cases that could eventually lead to a shutdown. One possible reform could be “expanding pretrial discovery” (Palmer, 1999, p. 534). Although the expansion can lead to the use of more resources, it would lead to a decline of innocent defendants pleading guilty. Perhaps one of the easier to install solutions regarding plea bargaining might be effective counsel. Through effective counsel, defendants would be assured their defense attorneys have thoroughly assessed their case. An effective counsel consists of a well conducted client interview, a thorough study of the prosecutor’s case, a well-established case, and estimation of both the consequences of a plea bargain or trial (Joy & Uphoff, 2014, pp. 2109-2110). Therefore, stricter regulation and implementation of ethical training need to be addressed before anything else can be done. Conclusion Plea bargaining became a common practice after the increased wave of crime during the late 1960s, eventually resulting in the majority of cases being solved through a plea bargain.
One of the main reasons for the increased number of negotiated pleas is the difficulty of taking all cases to trial. The emphasis of the ethical concerns that arise from plea bargaining is on Kantian ethics. In relation to Kantian ethics, the issue that arise is guilty pleas made by innocent individuals and the voluntariness of all defendants to make the decision to plead guilty. Abolishment of the plea bargain could eventually do more harm than good. However, effective counsel resulting from ethical training can lead to the decline of wrongful
pleads.
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
Indeed, plea bargaining is a “necessary evil” because it brings advantage to all sides, including the prosecutor, defendant and the court judges. Its necessity does not constitute its constitutionality, however, and plea bargaining should be limited in certain cases because it can be problematic in various aspects. In light of its inevitability, a categorization system can be employed to limit the use of plea bargaining and ensure its fair use, and that there should be specific guidelines for plea bargaining in each category of crime. In this paper, the definition and necessity of plea bargaining, as well as its potential problems, are discussed first. Then the paper would introduce the categorization system that originated from a comparative perspective.
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
Plea bargaining is a tool used in the court system for the benefit and detriment of the accused for numerous reasons. Additionally, the Crown will use plea bargaining for their benefit as well. For the purposes of this paper I intend to focus on the benefits and risks for an accused person to accept a plea bargain.
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”
In the adversarial justice system, when the offender admits to the criminal act, there is no further controversy and the case promptly proceeds to sentencing. Physical evidence and victim or witness statements may often be overlooked and not considered. The confession is considered unequivocal evidence of guilt and a conviction is ensured. Indeed, the interrogation process’ sole purpose is to obtain a confession. Zimbardo (1967) estimated that “of those criminal cases that are solved, more than 80% are solved by a confession.” (Conti, 1999) Without the confession, convictions may be reduced significantly. So why does a person falsely confess to a crime if the likelihood of a conviction is eminent? A false confession to any crime is self-destructive and counterintuitive.
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).
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.
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process. However, as Kagan states, rather than reduce the costliness or uncertainty of the legal process, these procedural changes have merely lead to an increase in litigation and, therefore, an increase of adversarial legalism in criminal and civil law.
For decades, we have been made to believe that criminals are people who have done harm to our society, violating the laws of the land, and don 't deserve a second chance. They should be locked away, and the keys should throw away. Unfortunately, today, our world is full of crimes and our system is getting overcrowded with criminals. However, with recent laws like the plea bargain proofs that there is hope and a way out to every situation. A plea bargain can be defined as negotiations during a criminal trial between the prosecutor and the defendant which result in a more lenient sentence than would have been recommended with the original charge (Farlex). Some would say that the use, or abuse, of the plea bargain, allows criminals
Therefore, under these ethical standards, prosecutors cannot file charges if there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, they also do not file if it is not in the public interest to do so. This is what makes the possibilities limitless; however, three key factors also play a part in determining which cases to prosecute. If prosecutors follow these three factors in determining cases then the contradiction of limitless discretion and high ethical standards should be remedied for others. These are factors that should be followed are as followed: the seriousness and nature of the offense, the offender’s culpability, and the likelihood of being able to obtain a conviction at a trial. “Ethical conduct, then, must be the core of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Therefore, even though prosecutors have almost limitless discretion in their decisions, they still must
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.