Essay On Plea Bargaining

Ad hoc plea bargains typically involves some sort of an unauthorized form of punishment by the courts, and the criminal justice system. It’s said that these forms of bargaining are unreasonable and also unethical and unusual. Law professor and former judge Joseph Colquitt identifies examples of ad hoc plea-bargaining and identifies the forms they come in. First, of the court may impose an extraordinary condition of probation following a plea. Second, the defendant may offer or be required to perform some act as a quid pro for a dismissal or more lenient sentence. Third, the court may impose an unauthorized form of punishment as a substitute for a statutory established method of punishment. Forth, the state may offer some unauthorized benefit

6). This would leave the court system plenty behind and nearly almost impossible to attend to each case. Plea bargaining is essential to court cases and must be done (Emerick), stated attorney Samuel Buccero. “The court is not set up to have multiple trials. The dockets are set up to be done in less than an hour” (Emerick), Buccero said.

People have long debated whether plea bargaining is the best way to handle felony cases in the justice system. This article focuses on a reformed, institutionalized way to plea bargain. The author researches the King County Prosecutors rationalized approach to the way the Early Plea Unit handles their cases.

The practice of plea-bargaining is a controversial issue that both benefit the court and the criminal. Plea-bargaining was not always wide spread throughout the court system. Today it is a main practice for prosecutors to put away criminals, even if it is for lesser charges. Plea-bargains happen for many reasons and are beneficiary and negative to everyone involved the process.

In some cases, plea bargaining does not undermine our criminal justice system because the defendant should be allowed to weigh their options; especially because this plea will affect their lives. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge can benefit the defendant in multiple ways; such as, it can save them paying extensive lawyer bills or maybe they don’t wish to spend their whole life in jail. However, if the prosecutor or even the judge bullied and threatens the defendant into accepting the plea bargain; that action is undermining our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and it is the responsibility of the state to prove one’s guilt. Yet in the case of Charles Gampero, Erma Faye Stewart, or anyone else mentioned in the documentary; either their lawyers or appointed judge were not even concern with the defendant’s innocence or guilt. Plea bargains should not be forced onto a defendant but given as an option, there is no need for threats or bullying; that action is what undermines our criminal justice system. This action—and also a statement made during the documentary—everyone who shows up in court is considered guilty

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

Pleas don’t come without drawbacks or dangers. Some fear that an innocent defendant may be pressured into a confession and plea out of fear of a more severe penalty if convicted. Another drawback is that some vicious criminals will get lenient treatment and get less than they deserve and be back out in a shorter time. “More than 90% of convictions come from negotiated pleas, which means that less than 10% of criminal cases result in trial.” This statistic starts to answer a question I had about our system. “What are the effects of plea bargaining in our courts and should there be more control over them?” The obvious effects are that fewer cases actually go to trial. With less cases

In all, plea bargaining serves various functions; nonetheless, the main purpose of plea bargaining is to improve “the administrative efficiency of the courts” (Wheatley 1974 in Goff, 2014, pg. 261). For instance, with plea bargaining, the courts can quickly garner a plea of guilty, and thus, a sentence can be provided for the accused, rather than attempt to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, Ken Chasse (2011) identifies other advantages of plea bargaining such as cost-saving, no consequences for violating the law and constitutional rights by the courts since the matters of plea bargaining are not reviewable (pg. 1). Furthermore, the “sentence can be known beforehand… [, and thus,] victims can be consulted more precisely about the outcome before sentence is imposed”, disclosure and discovery will not be known, “no trial errors” or reversals of the outcome by appeal courts, and both sides can also claim victory (Chasse, 2011, pg. 1).

Plea bargain provides that flexibility necessary to make adjustments and produce substantive justice (Neubauer qtd. in McCoy 325).

Plea-bargaining in the United States is considered an unregulated practice due to decisions the US Supreme Court made and essentially eliminated lower courts lawful right to judicial supervision (Brown, 2016). These decisions obligated judges to have little input in the plea bargaining process (Brown, 2016). “Those decisions rested primarily on two claims: separation of powers and the practical costs of regulating plea bargaining in busy criminal justice systems” (Brown, 2016, p. 1225).

According to Erlanger “several jurisdictions reported that ninety percent of felony cases ended in guilty pleas” during the end of the 19th century (Erlanger, H. S., 2005). As of now the percentage has dramatically increased and placed many innocent victims into pleading guilty for a crime they never committed. To scholars such as Mike McConville and Chester Mirsky, plea bargaining has been viewed as a “legitimizing” institution. The court room has approved and encourages defendants to continue pleading guilty. Changing the meaning and the actual purpose of plea bargaining the method of punishment has become a challenge in the courtroom because they do not have to invest unnecessary time on appeals.

The majority of cases today, over 90 percent of all cases, are plea-bargained (source). In the process of plea bargaining, the defendant most often ends up pleading guilty to a lesser offense in return for a lesser sentence determined by the prosecutor; not by the judge. The process of plea bargaining ironically undermines the original principles of the Founding Fathers, as Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” The Sixth Amendment also guarantees that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” By avoiding the process of a jury trial,

A plea bargain (“offer”) is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecuting agency may offer the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a proposal of a lighter than the maximum sentence. This opportunity allows defendants to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial on a more serious charge. This also allows all involved parties to keep the court’s calendars light without exhausting resources of a court, potential public defenders, and prosecutors who are all salaried for by the expense of tax payers. If every case in the criminal justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down.

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.

It has been understood that many successful criminal prosecutions in the United States end not with jury trial, rather yet plea bargain. Plea bargains are agreements between prosecutor and defendant, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in order to receive a lesser offence or sentence. “The mode of plea-bargaining is most closely associated with high volume, low-stakes cases like misdemeanors and low grade felonies, as well as cases in which the prosecutor and defense lawyer have a good relationship and a long history of past dealings,”(O’Hear,2008). Throughout the following report I will be creating a scenario as a prosecutor proposing a plea offer alongside with a role of defense counsel and preparing a counteroffer