Gerald Graff And Rakoff's They Say I Say

Today, in the United States, most citizens are able to appreciate the fair, balanced legal system that is in place. The country suffered many failures before establishing the United States Constitution, and later the Bill of Rights, which became the foundation of the country’s legal system and protection of the citizens’ rights (American Sentinel University). Citizens may take their right to trial or their right to due process for granted, without realizing how life was before these rights were recognized and established. Until the Constitution in 1787, the justice system was not permanent and not quite clear, causing unfair and unjust treatment. Of course, no system can be perfect, but it is possible to discover options that suit the wants

Solnit starts out by saying “Freedom to walk is not much use without someplace to go” (Solnit page 262). Solnit starts out by saying our early ancestors used to walk miles in order to obtain food, find romance or communicate. Solnit claims that the average American walking radius has decreased to “a quarter of a mile” (Sonlit page 264) In modern America we prefer to drive to our friends house rather than walk. We spent time more time on social media sites rather face to face communication. As of 2010 the New York Times have announced that the average Americans walk approximately half a mile a day. When I first came to Riverside from Norcal I used to live in motel 6. I have spent four hours a day for three weeks walking getting to know the school and city. Just as Henry David Thoreau said in “Walking,” walking can symbolize a path taken or history that was and now is. This lack of exercise leads to health issues such as diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, type two diabetes, stroke

In many communities, walking ‘behavior’ does appear to be unusual, because it looks so uncommon, despite the natural physiological aspect of walking. Riding in a car is seen as more normal, just like a robotic policeman is seen as more normal in the Bradbury story. Today, people do still walk, but often on a moving conveyor belt at the gym, rather in a real environment. This takes people away from nature and a sense of being part of something larger than themselves.

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

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

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

Research and read the Supreme Court case Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 (1971). Analyze why, even though the Supreme Court had ruled that plea bargaining was an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system, the Attorney General of Alaska, Avrum Gross, ordered an end to all plea bargaining in 1975. Do you agree with the Attorney General’s decision? Explain your position.

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

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

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

The phrase "innocent until proven guilty" has been quoted for many years. In our society, we have labeled the accused person either guilty or not guilty without giving that person or persons their rith of due process. Webster's New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition says: "Due Process is the course of legal proceedings established by the legal system of a nation or state to protect individual rights and liberties." Due Process will allow an accused person time to go through the court proceeding, in hope of proving his or her innocence or guilt. Due Process will give the individuals who have been accused of a crime the right to a fair and public trial, the right to be at the trial, the rith to an impartial jury, and the

In addition, pleading guilty results in lower court costs and the process is much quicker. However, charge negotiation can fail to balance the rights of offenders as offenders may be forced to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit. The rights of society are also balanced as this result in a greater rate of criminal convictions, which is far greater than no conviction at all. On the other hand, justice is scarcely achieved for victims during charge negotiation as serious crimes committed by the offender can go unpunished and retribution is not achieved for victims. Furthermore, the charge negotiation process also lacks transparency as negotiations are made between the accused and the prosecution. An example of charge negotiation not achieving justice for victims is the Nanette May case, which resulted in the new 2010 guidelines requiring victims and the police officer

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