John Oliver Case Analysis

I agree with the speaker that the criminal justice system in America treats you better if you’re rich and guilty than if you’re poor and innocent. I believe that in not only in American society but also around world, wealth has a major roll in the outcome of a situation. Money does what money does best, it buys. Unfortunately, money can buy you your freedom and a judge. With money people look up to you, but without money people look down on you.

More than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated pleas, also known as, plea bargaining. Plea bargains are used every day at both the federal and state court level. They certainly have their “proponents” as well as their “opponents”. A plea bargain basically is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. That agreement is usually in the form of a defendant pleading guilty to a “lesser” crime with a reduced sentence in return for the prosecuting authority not having to expend the time, energy, expense and manpower in seeking a conviction in a trial of a more serious charge. An evaluation of the evidence against the defendant is usually a significant factor by the prosecutor in determining whether or not a plea bargain should be offered. If the prosecutor’s case is strong, the chances of a plea bargain being offered to the defendant are lessened. While at the same time, if the prosecutor feels that his evidence is on the weaker side, the probability of a plea bargain being offered is enhanced.

It all starts with backed up courtrooms. A man is charged with killing another man. There is no evidence to convict this man of these charges. This leads the prosecutors to work out a plea-bargain. The pressure of other cases and the need for a guilty charge is what leads plea-bargaining to happen more every year. As a result many criminals get off easy and in return prosecutors look good for winning the case.

Economic status is a relevant aspect in the experience of punishment. To an individual who sternly believes that the American justice system entitles every person to the same standard of due process, the previously mentioned idea is blasphemous. Unfortunately, the concept is false. The American justice system does not equally accommodate the needs of criminals placed on trial. Class is relevant in the experience of punishment only because economic inequality is barely recognized in the formulation and carrying out of prison sentences. The foundation of this unjust punishment is laid down at the trial, where disadvantaged individuals find themselves the victims of stereotypes, poor legal representation and haphazard verdicts. Once imprisoned, lower class criminals become immersed in an environment which mimics the troubled circumstances that originally led them to commit crime. Having received an ineffective sentence, convicts return to their poor communities and are expected to reintegrate into society without proper treatment.

Jimmy Santiago Baca is a winner of the International Prize for his work in, A Place to Stand. The making of a poet. He writes, “I had no money. There is no way I’m going to make bail” (Baca, 187). In some cases, prisoners are only locked up because they had to get appointed a defense attorney who convinced them to plead to the charges so they would not have to go to trial and risk getting an extended amount of time. District attorneys are elected by the citizens and those people want someone who is tough on crime. If the district attorney is not tough on crime, the people will not reelect him. This can lead to many innocent lives being wasted; For instance, some criminals will sit in a cell for decades for the smallest offense. However, if a prisoner attempts to plead not guilty and the case goes to a trial by jury and they do find him or her guilty, they will be sentenced to an even longer term. It is obvious that our justice system is unfair and against human morals and ethics. They are somehow “innocent until proven guilty” yet they cannot afford to prove themselves innocent. Not only is poverty a reason for the rising increase in the population of inmates, many lack the education needed to understand the law or what they are being accused of.

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.”

No one knows how juries will react in certain situations. For most defendants the incentives far outweigh the disadvantages. One benefit is receiving a lighter sentence on a lighter charge than they would have received if gone to trial and lost. They pretty well know that they will be found guilty so they help the court by pleading guilty and saving them time. In return, the court offers a lighter sentence for the plea. Another benefit of plea-bargaining is monetary. If represented by private counsel, the defendant usually spends a bundle on their fees. It takes less time and effort to go through a plea bargain that does a trial. Some other reasons are to have less socially stigmatizing offense on one’s record. Another is just to avoid publicity and the hassle of minor offenses.

When it comes to trials there is a great deal of uncertainty. There is no way to predict what a jury or judge will decide. A case that a lawyer thought would go one way could completely turn and do the opposite. This leads to the question of whether a case should be taken to trial or not. It is because of this that plea bargaining is often put to use. Plea bargaining is beneficial to the prosecutor as well as the defense attorney and the defendant. Plea bargains are based upon the mutual interest of all parties involved and they can occur for a variety of reasons.

In her informative essay, “Assisting the Poor to Make Bail Helps Everyone”, Tina Rosenberg states the Bronx Freedom Fund is one of the four community organizations in the city that aims to directly help the innocent people accused and wrongfully given dangerous jail time. The author recognizes how the court system makes it almost impossible to make bail when they take your phone, the defendant cannot pay their own bail, and you must pay in cash. These, as well as a few other limitations make it very difficult for the defendant. The process of the court system, in fact, is not keeping the streets any safer, “a drug dealer is more likely to make bail than a shoplifter”(Rosenberg). Ritchin, head of the Bronx Freedom Fund, offers those who are not fortunate enough to make bail a third option, one that is much more helpful and safe.

“It emphasizes efficiency and the capacity to catch, try, convict, and punish a high proportion of offenders; it also stresses speed and finality. (Cole & Smith, 2010). The prosecutor in this model looks at the evidence, and chances of getting a conviction. If there is a slight chance, then the state will not move forward with prosecution of the case. If there is a preponderance of evidence then the prosecution will begin bargaining with the defense, agree on a jail term, and the defendant then usually pleads guilty to the charges. This is a fast and efficient method, which saves money by keeping many trials out of court. On the other hand there is a higher likelihood that innocent people who are facing a long sentence, would plea out to a lesser sentence rather than risking getting the longer time in jail. Think about it, if you were innocent of a charge, and facing life in prison, but were offered a five-year sentence with parole, what would you do? You could simply take the time and move on, or risk a jury trial, where there is a possibility you would still be found guilty. These are the tough decisions that some innocent people have to actually face. Many people that are guilty of crimes also benefit from this system, by getting a lesser sentence. Is the cost of saving money, worth letting a guilty person back on the streets sooner? I do not believe it is worth saving the money, and feel that if you are guilty of a crime then you should

An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence. It is really impossible to predict what a jury is going to decide in a trial. I personally think that plea bargaining is being used as an easy way out; instead of having the person who committed the crime pay for what they did by serving the whole time. By managing a plea bargain the terms can sometimes be used to include pondering on how it works and who it can help.

The prosecution will benefit because they are evaluated in large part according to their conviction rates and all plea bargains result in a conviction because the defendant must plead guilty as part of the plea agreement. (Legal Dictionary) In another case the prosecution talked how the defendant had been acquitted by a jury after the county spent a million dollars on the case. The prosecution states that they tried to bargain with the defendant, but frankly they had a weak case and how they tried to cut the defendant a deal but they ended up taking the defendant to court and wasting the courts resources.

I never realized how money affects the level of justice people receive. As perfectly exemplified through the OJ Simpson, the richer a person is, the better chance they have at getting the verdict they desire. Although not all for hire defense lawyers are better than public defenders, but good defense lawyers are able to charge so much money because they are extremely good at their job and help get their client acquitted. In any other circumstance other than OJ Simpson, a black male accused of double homicide would never have been able to get acquitted. OJ could afford a legal team made up of experts and his legal team costed him $50,000 a day, more than some people make in a whole year. If he wasn’t rich, he would currently be in jail and there for the rest of his life. This is true most cases; money, which gets someone a better lawyer, gives them a better chance at a better sentence. To me, this says that having money and being rich means the law works more in their favor, or is able to argue better in their favor, and that is a fundamental error in our justice system.

Plea bargaining is the way the courts saves money and time. Most attorneys are over worked and tried, barely even look at the police reports. Prosecutors have gained the most of

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.