Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of plea bargaining
The importance of plea bargaining
The importance of plea bargaining
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of plea bargaining
Unfair Court Decisions
Suppose a special prosecutor tired you on purpose to put you in jail, and you didn’t plead guilty to show that you are truly innocent. Is it fair to you when the prosecutor tried knowingly and willfully while you are innocent? What do you do if you are harshly punished because you do not want to plead guilty to show that you’re innocent for real? This thing has been happening in our court system in criminal cases for many decades. In criminal cases, punishing defendants who didn’t plead guilty harshly creates severe problems to its citizens. To avoid those problems, judges and juries should not lessen the punishments, whether defendants plead guilty, or they should not harden the punishment for people who did not plead
…show more content…
So Allmendinger should not have been sentenced more than Oncale because they both committed the crime equally. The only difference is Ocanle agreed to plead guilty, whereas Allmendinger did not. As it is clearly written in the Fifth Amendments, every citizen has a Miranda right. One of that rights is to keep silent. The Amendment does not say this right is only for citizens who are not charged neither says only for innocent citizens. But it generally protects all citizens, whether they are truly criminal or not. So, if it is citizens’ right, why is the government punishing them for practicing their right?
I do not believe that Allmendinger should not be punished for the crime he did, or nor saying he should not be punished for trying to hide assets, but he should not have been punished harshly for not pleading guilty as it is his
…show more content…
For instance, Dr. Kruse, John states in his article, “attorneys and scholars predicted that banning plea bargaining would result in…jamming the courts and creating huge backlogs” (28). This idea seems very logical, but before Dr. Kruse became to this conclusion, he should have supported the idea with research. According to an article titled Alaska 's Plea Bargaining Ban Re-evaluated, “disposition times for criminal cases actually improved” (1). There are many factors why the disposition times improved. One of them is Prosecutors start trying defendants when they have evidence which is beyond a reasonable doubt rather than probable cause. As the research showed in the Alaska state, they have not had and any huge backlogs. Suppose research showed that there were huge backlogs in the Alaska’s court system, punishing defendants who do not accept the offer of plea bargain has severe disadvantages. For instance, reducing the sentencing period for people who plead guilty encourages people to do more crime because people know that they will be less sentenced as long as they accept the offer of the plea bargain. We can also use traffic court as an example. I was given a ticket for speeding over the limit. I decided to go
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
Criminals can come in many different shapes and sizes. For example, a criminal can be classified as being a murderer or a criminal could just simply have committed fraud in a business setting. There is a large diversity of criminals and it is the judge’s job to determine what is a fair punishment for a guilty verdict. Judge Ron Swanson, a federal judge for the Florida District Court of Appeal, deals with using cost-benefit analysis daily to determine what is fair for everyone involved. Before becoming a judge, Judge Swanson was a prosecutor coming out of law school in the University of Florida. As a prosecutor and a judge, Judge Swanson has always worked to bring justice for the victims, the defendant if he or she is innocent, and for the citizens
Most states had stiffer criminal sanction in place before the three strikes law came into play for repeat offender and most of these criminals would serve lengthy terms for their repeat offenses anyways, however the discretion to impose those lengthy prison sentences was at the hands of the judge time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). One must also consider that not all criminals are even aware that the three strike law exist much less are aware of what its implications would be on their repeat offenses. An...
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
There has been some speculation regarding if plea bargains are effective or not, in regards to obtaining a desirable outcome. Some thoughts are that plea bargains are used to scare innocent defendants into pleading guilty. Another theory is that guilty defendants use plea bargains just to expedite their sentencing. As said by Chin, because there is the possibility of an innocent defendant pleading guilty, this merits an obligation to lawyers ensuring that the client understands the consequences (Chin
Judge Leval used a weighing method suggested by the sentencing commission rather than the method required by Congress. The different method used did not trigger the mandatory sentence whereas the congressional method would have. Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that requires police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they can be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you by the court. In this case, the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before one is interrogated by the police.
One could wonder why plea bargains are even made. One reason would be that criminal courts are becoming clogged and overcrowded. Going through the proper procedure and processes that we are granted takes time. Trials can take anywhere from days to...
Option 4: Both King and Rawls touch on the nature of just and unjust law, while King goes a step further and argues about responding to unjust law. Write an essay about how individuals do or do not respond to unjust law.
DELIBERATING CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: A WAY OUT OF GET TOUGH JUSTICE? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 37-43. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1016637721).
Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates.
In order to understand whether judges would be better at making decisions if they were more truthful, if is essential that an examination of the manner in which they decide cases is undertaken. Many judges will decide based on their own personal back ground. For example, if the judge had a clash in the past with a member of a different race that might play a role in the decision making process. Judicial impartiality is a fundamental characterized in a legal system under the rule of law. The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases. Plea bargaining allows the flexibility necessary if the system is to respond with any degree of concern for the circumstances of individual cases, however, it may also entice defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit rather than risk their constitutional right to
Throughout its history, the United States of America has been faced with the question of just versus unjust concerning its laws and Supreme Court decisions, as they reflect the legal standards by which people are governed. Unjust decisions can result in an injustice by prohibiting conduct that should be permitted and encroach upon the citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court of the United States is considered to be the law of the land and the decisions it makes must be obeyed. However, the Supreme Court decisions, despite being the law of the land, can be unjust as they reflect on the common sense ideologies of the time and include the final say of the majority. The ruling made in Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940 was unjust because it was in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and because it reflected ideologies of the majority and neglected the opinions of the minority. This decision can be negated by making the flag salute a choice that does not encroach upon an individual’s First Amendment rights.
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
If most cases went to trial, the likelihood of the accused posting bail or the judge releasing the accused on their own recognizance is seldom therefore, jails would be crowded with individuals awaiting court dates. According to an article "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty" by Jed S. Rakoff "In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial." This is infringing people 's right based on the sixth
Another way in which the criminal justice system can be improved upon that rarely gets talked about is holding prosecutors responsible for their dereliction of duty. Their negligence could be the direct reason why someone is falsely convicted and yet nothing is done to them for it. They find ways to circumvent crucial evidence and suffer no punitive repercussions. Some prosecutors have even been known to completely piece together or even make up evidence that makes the defendant appear guilty. How is it possible that these individuals get away with these types of activities and experience no legal