Criminal Procedure and The Court System

Courts are established social, political, and judicial institutions necessary for the manifestation of justice and the maintenance of law and order. The courts are part of the judicial branch of government, as outlined in Article III of the United States Constitution. Courts are the arenas in which the law is tried and applied. Judges are the presiding officers of the court. The United States Supreme Court is the most fundamental court because has "the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve other disputes over them," (United States Courts, 2012). This is true even though even though the court does not expressly enforce that law; enforcement is the province of the executive branch.

The contest of strength between the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model is similar to attempting to satisfy every person, each and every second and no one some of the time. Debates are good for both models, but for all growth on one side, there must be one on the opposing side as well. The Crime Control Model, prosecutor or the police, is not in favor for the Due Process Model, a person, to have more rights than they do. Each and every individual who is a United States citizen should know what his or her rights are.

Without out plea bargaining, courts and jail would be overcrowded, unorganized and forced to shut down. Moreover, people willing to accept their crimes and take punishment are rewarded with lesser sentences, saving everyone’s time, while still serving

Plea bargaining has become an essential part of our criminal justice system. A vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are resolved by plea bargaining. Despite the rights that an accused has under the US Constitution, many will still accept a plea bargain. You are presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to a trial by jury and to have an impartial judge. Even though you have these rights under the Constitution very few defendants are choosing to use them, instead relying on a plea bargain deal to be

The use of plea bargaining has been prevalent in the modern Justice system throughout generations. It was not until the early twentieth century that its use became common and admissible in courts. During the early twenties the great experiment of prohibition came about, legally this resulted in the over criminalization of many laws, and saw the courts swell far beyond overcapacity. Although it's been legally used for over a hundred years, the plea bargain saw its real start begin with this massive influx of criminals. Throughout its early history the plea bargain was seen as a tool to buy freedom, lawyers and judges did not try and hide the price tag of a reduced scented, naturally it was used as a tool of corruption. Even after the end of prohibition the United States government searched to over

Like many procedures in the criminal justice system, plea-bargaining has its pros and cons. The biggest advantage of plea-bargaining is the management it has on caseloads by weaning less significant cases out or reducing the amount of time that would be spent at a trail. The process decreases the prosecutor’s workload by letting them prepare for more serious cases. Along side reducing workloads, it also eliminates the cases’ uncertainty. It helps defendants with making sure they will not receive more serious charges for the criminal acts filed against them. Plea-bargaining also does not allow for the cases to get worse than it already is, in a sense it puts the case on pause. When a charged individual takes a plea bargain, the suspect will not be required to go through trial. This can be an advantage and disadvantage at the same time considering that crimes and damning evidence may never be discovered. By doing all of the things mentioned above, plea-bargaining allows for the justice system to figuratively take a breath. If all cases made it to a trial by jury, then the justice system would be simply overloaded and would not be able to sustain themselves and stay afloat because courts would be back up for years. Taking a look at the disadvantages: plea-bargaining can lead to poor case preparation and investigations. Some attorneys and judges often argue that plea bargains had led to attorneys not taking time to properly prepare their case, which also results in poor police investigations. It might also allow prosecutors to take full advantages of accepting criminal acts in the weakest trials, it could be considered biased to a prosecution party. An innocent individual also stands the chance of

Immemorial, governments and individual citizens have had to walk a thin tightrope between the two ideals. This controversy was the catalyst that sparked the first ten amendments of the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights and, how in addition to these rights secured by America's forefathers, a number of institutions have arisen to ensure the protection of individual rights in an increasingly complex world. In order to add balance to this equation, the criminal

There are a number of different weaknesses associated with the process of plea bargaining. This is because, many of these issues are often overlooked based on the convenience and timeliness that it is providing for prosecutors. Moreover, the defendants also have the option of refusing any kind of plea deal (in order to have a trial by jury). This means that anyone who accepts these kinds of

Plea-bargaining has very few benefits followed by a lengthy list of downsides when being used in criminal cases. One of the biggest drawbacks to plea-bargaining is that defendants that are innocent sometimes plea guilty. Out of all criminal cases, 14% to 25% of them result in false confessions from the defendants due to police tactics that are carried out while the plea bargain is being discussed (Schneider). The defendant might also accept a plea bargain to avoid going to court and getting convicted even though they 're innocent (Schulhofer). Often times, defendants are worried that if their case goes to trial that they might lose because there is not enough evidence proving their innocence, therefore, they plead guilty which results in a lesser jail time for them. Plea bargains also do not allow for innocent defendants to get a chance to prove their innocence in front of a jury. It denies the defendant the advantages of a strong defense and results in undeserved punishments to innocent defendants that could win in trial (Schneider). Although this may seem beneficial to the defendant, it is not, because a defendant usually fare better in a jury trial since the prosecution has the burden of proof (Jolley). In the United States the justice system should not allow innocent

The criminal justice system relies heavily on the plea bargain. In order for the system to work the majority of defendant's must admit guilt and agree to a plea bargain for a lesser crime or sentence. (Pollack, 2015). It helps both the prosecutor and the client to accept a plea bargain deal. While many agree of the pros in plea bargaining such as reducing which cases go to trial and high conviction rates. It is also the least costly trial method. In the US felonies are much more likely to take a plea bargain than to not. While plea bargaining causes more innocent people to plead guilty it also gives defense attorney's heavier caseloads, limited resources, and leads to over criminalization. The advantages of having a plea jury would be to give

When comparing The United States criminal justice system to any other nation's system of justice, it becomes abundantly clear that we have the fairest and efficient system of justice in the world. Notwithstanding, that fact, like all systems of law it has its flaws; but our system must continue to flow as smoothly as possible. Therefore, certain practices or options for prosecution were adopted. Accordingly, the practice of plea bargaining, which enables a defendant to reduce their charges down to a lesser offense, or have certain charges dropped altogether to reduce their sentence, has become standard.

Plea-bargaining is one of the most controversial aspects of the American legal process. While some individuals regard plea-bargaining as an effective tool used to ensure justice, others consider it fundamentally unconstitutional. Plea-bargaining is a process in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a charge in exchange for either a reduced sentence or a lesser charge. The process is extremely private and judges typically have very little influence over the negotiation. Most frequently, the prosecutor negotiates the plea with the defendant who maintains the right to effective legal counsel. Once an agreement is reached, the prosecutor presents the decision to a judge who has the final say on all sentencing matters. To date, the Department of Justice estimates that approximately 97% of all criminal cases are resolved by plea-bargaining as opposed to trial by jury. While plea-bargaining offers multiple benefits to the legal process and the general public, it is a system that is in need of critical reform. Plea bargains frequently result in court decisions that are both unjust and unconstitutional. However, implementing federal requirements that limit prosecutorial power and protect the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights can significantly reduce these issues.

Does plea bargaining sacrifice the rights of the defendant, or do the guilty benefit? Unfortunately, there isn’t a clear and cut answer to this as every circumstance presents its own unique obstacles. However, in my opinion and personal expertise, a plea bargain has the substantial potential to sacrifice the rights of the defendant because it may charge innocent people guilty. Even if one is innocent, they may feel pressured to accept a plea as opposed to taking the case to trial and potentially exacerbating the legal repercussions. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, however, how does one evaluate fairness when “more than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated please”? (Thomson Reuters, 2017). Plea bargains cause poor investigations and case preparations because attorneys aren’t going the extra mile to fight for justice, rather, Americans are settling for pleas to crimes that they did not commit. Plea bargains take the focus from the

Much of the criticism leveled at the legal system in general and the criminal justice system in particular is well-deserved, but one feature of the criminal justice system poorly understood and thus unfairly judged by both the public and the media, is the process of plea bargaining. Because criminal defendants have no incentive to plead guilty as charged, and because the number of cases that would otherwise need to be tried vastly exceeds the resources available to try them, plea bargaining is a strategy for avoiding total gridlock.

By using Sanborns paper as a reference, it shows us that the concept of plea bargaining we use today has only been around for about 50 years. In these past 50 years, although still relatively new, plea bargaining has become such an incremental part in the court system. Within the last few years ir has especially picked up momentum. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics in 2003, scholars have drawn the conclusion that 90-95% of all trials were fixed by the process of plea bargaining (Devers, 2011). At that rate, it is not hard to imagine that eventually almost all of our court procedures will be carried out through this process. To put it into perspective, this means that 5% of all court cases actually go onto trial. Typically, plea bargaining is a relatively private process, but as always this is ever changing. Victims’ rights groups are starting to become recognized more and more, which leads to more input being given in the plea bargain process. How this affects the plea process is simple, more input means less flexible sentencing which can usually stall the negotiating process, prolonging an agreement between the two parties. The theory of plea bargaining is constantly shifting, with many viewers constantly trying to decrease the use of it.