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

Over the years plea bargaining has become the way for the Administration of Justice in America and Canada’s criminal trials. Accused criminals are giving up the rights to a fair trial, to indeed plead guilty, in order to receive a much lesser charge, more comfortable prison, or even to agree to testify against someone else. Fewer than ten percent of criminal cases brought up by the federal government even make it to the federal courts to be tried before juries each year. “According to one legal scholar, every two seconds during a typical workday, a criminal case is disposed of in an American courtroom by way of a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea” (Lynch, par. 1). Which ultimately means more than ninety percent of criminal cases are

There are three types of plea bargaining. The first type is, Charge Reduction, which is defined as where the prosecutor’s office may choose to file the most serious charge warranted by the facts and evidence. The second form of plea bargaining is, Removal of Charges. Which is

A plea bargain is a negotiation between the defendant and their attorney on one side, and the crown prosecutor on the other side. A plea bargain may give the defendant a lightened sentence, in exchange for either confessing to some crimes, or giving information that is related to the offence, for example, the location of stolen goods or the names and locations of other participants, as well as their part in the offence.

Ms. Bowen states in her article that all authors reviewed agree that, “plea bargaining under an imbalanced system does not achieve justice, much less arrive at something that resembles empirical or legal truth, institutionalized plea bargaining best resembles the criminal justice system’s

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

What is Plea Bargaining? Plea Bargaining is the pre-trial arrangement, which happens in a criminal methodology. Amid this system, the respondent and has his lawyer sits on one side, and the prosecutor is on the other. The litigant either consents to argue "blameworthy" or "no challenge" to a wrongdoing. Another component for plea bargaining would likewise be because the respondent uncovers data, for example, area of stolen merchandise, names of others taking part in the wrongdoing or affirmation of different crime’s, for example, a series of robberies. Consequently, a decrease in charges, or rejection of a few charges, this must be endorsed by the judge, before tolerating can occur. On the off chance that the judge does not concur, at that

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

According to Timothy Sandefur’s In Defense of Plea Bargaining article, “a plea bargain is a contract with the state. The defense agrees to plead guilty to a lesser crime and receive a lesser sentence, rather than go to trial on a more severe charge where he faces the possibility of a harsher sentence.” We are also told in The New York Times Article; Federal Law on Sentencing is Unjust, Judge Rules that “about 97 percent of federal criminal convictions nationwide were the result of plea bargains.”

In Glenn Ford’s case, his state-provided lawyers had “never even stepped foot in the courtroom before…they never tried a case and [were] defending a capital case." One specialized in oil and gas law and the other had never appeared before a jury, making the pair woefully ill equipped for the most momentous occasion in the defendant’s life. Playing off of Mr. Ford’s fears and cowering behind the gravitas of the prosecution, they urged Mr. Ford to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. Little did Ford know that the outcome would be dire, unwittingly driving the final nail in his own coffin. Obviously, plea-bargaining brings about many advantages. In most cases, it minimizes the risk of longer sentences if the prosecution uncovers more damning evidence, as well as shortens trial lengths. This works particularly well for those that already know of their guilt, who can choose the lesser of two evils—the devil they know. Drawing fewer trials, bargaining supposedly carries the added benefit of minimizing backlogs and enabling more cases to be heard in a given period of time. Yet, many of the troubles of plea-bargaining go overlooked. Though some may be genuinely innocent, defendants often plead guilty to more lenient sentences rather than risk the possibility of harsher penalties from a trial's decision—made especially more tempting if they have a poor defense team. Furthermore, plead-bargaining essentially skates around rigorous methods of truth-seeking; thoroughness and impartiality play second fiddle to backdoor wheeling and dealing, making things more a matter of what’s convenient to the parties involved than finding

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

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

Prosecutors may use plea bargaining as means to advance their case against a co-defendant. They may accept a plea bargain arrangement from one defendant in return for damaging testimony against another. This way, they are assured of at least one conviction even if it’s a lesser charge with the enhanced chances of captivating a conviction against the second defendant.

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.