Plea Bargaining Research Paper

Plea-bargaining, used in ninety percent of criminal convictions in the United States criminal justice system today is the exchange of prosecutorial and legal concessions for pleas of guilty. Generally, a defendant in a criminal trial will enter “one of three pleas: guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere.” Nolo contendere, otherwise known as no contest has the same effect as a guilty plea, which means the defendant is convicted and accepts punishment but does not admit guilt (lawyers.com). But in the plea-bargaining process, which aims to avoid trial because of costs and time, a defendant and his or her defense attorney may negotiate with the prosecutor for one of four different bargains. In the first type of deal, the prosecutor may reduce

the initial charges to a lesser offense, which in-turn reduces the sentence imposed. Another deal that may be struck in cases with multiple counts is the prosecutor may reduce the number of counts, not the actual crime itself. In addition, the prosecutor may guarantee a softer sentence or may change a negative label like sex offender to a more “socially acceptable” label like assault. All four options require a guilty plea from the defendant and the prosecutor must follow through on the deal by law. Although not available to ever offender, plea-bargaining is widely used and has thus been a focus for many critics. Plea-bargaining, a quick process used to avoid lengthy criminal trials and high costs, encompasses several key figures of the criminal court, and the system in it of itself has several pros and cons as well as legal issues and those that oppose such process have fore fronted reform efforts that go as far as abolishing the process altogether.
The decision making process in plea-bargaining involves several different parties and only one can make the deal a reality, the judge.

Although the process is largely informal and lacks judicial input, the judge must approve the plea agreements. If the judge accepts the deal, the events to follow will go as stated, but if the judge denies an agreement then the defendant will be moved to a criminal trial proceeding. The reason behind the judge’s sole power in plea negotiations, according to the ABA a leading national legal organization is because judicial participation creates the impression in the mind of the defendant that they cannot receive a fair trial, lessens the ability of the judge to make an objective determination of the voluntary nature of the plea, and it may induce innocent defendants to plead guilty because they are afraid to reject the disposition desired by the judge. Also included in this decision making process is the prosecutor, the lawyer representing the state, who formulates and ultimately offers the deal to the defendant to receive a guilty plea in return. On the other side of the deal is the defense counsel who is expected to play an advisory role for the defendant to ensure he or she is fully aware of the nature of the plea bargain process and the guilty plea. The defense is not allowed to deceive his or her client into making a disadvantageous deal or fail to communicate all plea deals that were offered to the defendant. On occasion, the victim can

play a role in the process even though he or she is not “empowered” at the pretrial stage. While statutes do not force the prosecutor to follow the victim’s wishes, sometimes victim statements can have a significant effect on prosecutorial handling of the plea negotiations if one is even offered. Overall, there are three main decision makers in the plea-bargaining process: the judge, the prosecutor, and the defendant.
Since ninety percent of criminal convictions are done through plea-bargains, the process definitely has many positive aspects to both the state and defendant. Proponents argue that the benefits to the state include reduction of criminal prosecution costs, increased administrative efficiency of the courts, and more resources freed up to give to cases in need of greater attention. Additionally, the defendant avoids possible detention and an extended trial and may even receive a reduced sentence. On the other hand, opponents say that the negotiated plea should be eradicated for several reasons. First, the process encourages defendants to surrender their constitutional right to trial because the prosecutor can often sell the deal by making it sound like it is the best route. Also, adversaries claim that plea bargains allow dangerous offenders to receive lenient sentences. For example, Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender, was offered a ten-year prison sentence for a juvenile rape and when he was released he killed a seven-year-old girl. So opponents would contend that if Mr. Timmendequas was sentenced to a harsher sentence and not given a plea deal than the girl that was killed would still be living today. Furthermore, the process increases the risk that an innocent person will be convicted of a crime because the “offender” may be convinced that the lighter sentence from a plea deal would be better than taking his or her chances in trial and subsequently face harsher charges if found guilty because sometimes jury verdicts are mistaken. In fact research conducted by the Innocence Project found that thirty of 316 convicts exonerated by DNA evidence had entered a guilty plea due to the strong necessity of guilt given off by prosecutors on the federal level (Beekman).
With varying opinions from proponents and opponents, several legal issues have arisen that neither side can dispute because The Supreme Court has ruled on them.

After reviewing multiple plea bargain decisions and upholding the continuation of the negotiating process, the highest court of the land has provided six core rulings on the process beginning with the point that defendants are permitted to have defense counsel to protect from pressure and influence from the prosecutor. Next, the court has ruled that “pleas must be made voluntarily and without pressure”, yet prosecutors still threaten stiffer penalties to defendants if he or she is not accepting the plea at the current stage. The prosecutor and defense must keep their promised side of the deal even after guilt is admitted in court. In addition, the defendant’s due process rights are not violated when the prosecutor threatens to re-indict the accused on more serious charges and accepting a guilty plea from a person who claims their innocence is still considered a valid declaration of guilt. Finally, when accounts given by the defendant may be used against him or her at trial if the negotiations fail if the person admits to the crime during the bargaining process but later testifies that he or she did not commit the act and maintains innocence. These rulings are essentially mandatory guidelines for the process and help maintain the complexity of the controversial

process.
Plea bargaining is not the best practice in the eyes of many Americans and has been in the spotlight several times for reform efforts and reform successes. Recently, progress has been made in making the process into a more transparent, comprehensible, and just through guideline implementation. For example, it is now customary that the presiding judge asks the defendant about the facts of the guilty plea before accepting the plea. Other guidelines define the kinds and types of cases and offenders that may be suitable for plea barraging instead of leaving the decision up to the prosecutor who already has vast discretionary powers in the criminal justice system. Moreover, efforts to completely ban plea bargaining have only showed limited success in Alaska, which eliminated the practice in 1975 but has since brought back some negotiations. But with no or limited plea bargaining, the right to a speedy trial may be questioned because one major reliever of court caseload is plea bargains and without them cases begin to pile up extremely fast. Without a doubt the process is controversial and efforts for reform are understandable but the process is here to stay for now.
Overall, plea bargaining is a complex, yet informal process that allows a defendant to either receive a lesser charger, lower count, more socially acceptable label, or laxer sentence. The practice involves three main parties, the prosecutor, the crafter of the deal, the judge the decider of the deal, and the defendant, the proponent or opponent of the deal. All have major decision making powers in the negotiations but it all comes down to the acceptance or reject ruling from the judge. Like any process, it has its positives and negatives. Proponents ultimately argue it benefits by time and money saving aspects while opponents point out the process’s ease in putting an innocent person in prison for a crime he or she did not commit and the swiftness in letting a murder or rapist off with a lesser offense that they truly did not commit. The opponents essentially point out that any of the four routes of the deal previously noted all lead to one gift to the criminal, a lesser sentence. They continue by stating that with lesser sentences the offenders are able to commit crimes again just like the Timmendequas Case. As a common practice in the United States criminal justice system, plea bargaining is at the top of informal justice and many reform efforts aim to formalize the process and cut the discretionary decision making.