Plea Bargain Research Paper

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.

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 plea bargaining process is no stranger to the justice system. The issue of plea bargaining has been subject to never-ending debate as to whether or not this system is still viable. Some believe that we should abolish this system of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is criticized for failing to take into account the victims’ desires. Rampant is the belief that people are not being properly punished for their crime and, as such, leads to a diminished respect for the criminal justice process. Others believe that the plea bargaining system is necessary in order to prevent overwhelming case loads for the justice system and it also helps save court time and money by resolving cases early on in the criminal process. It can also help secure a conviction if it is unclear if there is enough evidence for the accused to be found guilty of his or her crime. Despite some of its limitations raised by critics, we should not go so far as to demand the abolishment of plea negotiations. The plea bargaining system is a necessary evil. While the system of plea bargaining is indispensable, it is important to note that the plea bargaining process in Canada is far from perfect. Thus, suggestions will be recommended for a reform of the process of plea bargaining. Directions for future research will be discussed as well.

In chapter 18 “The Case against Plea Bargaining” by Timothy Lynch, it discusses the use of plea barging in cases which involve defendants admitting guilt in exchange for a reward. According to Lynch, some of the benefits include being charged with a lesser offense or in other words a reduced sentence, a decrease in counts when a defendant is charged with numerous counts of crime, and a promise by the prosecutor to recommend to the judge that a soft sentence is forced. Another benefit is the modification in the charges filed against the defendant to be somewhat more acceptable.

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

Implementing restrictions on convicted felons certainly does present both positive and negative affects on the individual felon and on society as a whole. Public support of such restrictions essentially is based on the personal beliefs and priorities of individual citizens. While some people think that restricting convicted felons will deter crime, thereby making society better over all, that isn’t always the case. In fact, these restrictions may even increase recidivism rates in the U.S. due to the inability of felons to achieve a stable lifestyle following their release from prison. Additionally, like you mentioned, such restrictions may impose unfair punishments on individuals who committed relatively minor crimes that only affected themselves,

The most essential features of our criminal justice system is bail, preventive detention, and plea bargaining. These three features are necessary for our criminal justice system to work the way it does. One of the most beneficial way, two of these systems benefit the criminal justice system, is by lessening the burden on prisons and jails, which are already over capacity. In some ways bail, preventive detention, and plea bargaining are seen as controversial and counterproductive to our criminal justice system, but are required to maintain an equality between safety, fairness and justice.

A continuous response scale from 0-100 was used for certain variables while a response scale regarding 7 potential plea bargain offers was used in reference to other variables. While this study started out with 93 public defenders and 46 prosecutors, once missing data was calculated it ended up with 67 public defenders and 29 prosecutors (Pezdek, 2010-2011).

When most people think of criminal sentencing they think of a grand wooden courtroom with a full jury and a proud judge in black presiding over it all, but that is far from the usual for those that are accused of federal crimes. The reality of what happens after you are accused of a crime is much different, as much of the bulk of those accused of a crime end up plea bargaining for a variety of reasons, and very few people actually end up going to trial. An in depth look is necessary to really understand the complicated truth of the relationship the plea bargain has with our justice system and our citizens. To understand the plea bargain it takes looking into what originally it was made for, what it represents now, and the effect it has on our

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

Plea bargaining has been around for a long time and has evolved throughout time. It caught fire and became pretty popular, but many still find problems with it and many want to get rid of it; however, some feel that it would be a waste to get rid of it. It becomes a little difficult to determine if plea bargaining is good or bad and if we should abolish it because there are so many parties and different viewpoints involved, such as the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the criminals, etc. This paper will show that plea bargaining is useful in today’s society and will most likely not be taken away anything soon due to its success among the different parties.

6. Both the defendant and the prosecutor will benefit from a plea bargain since it helps avoid severe sentencing or acquittal respectively.

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.

Overall, regardless of whether the decision of the plea bargain made by the police during Bernardo and Hamolka crime is considered right or wrong according to a specific ethical theory, their crimes were simply horrible. We cannot determine who planned all the crimes or who enjoyed them the most. However, we can easily conclude, whether if we are supporter of Utilitarianism or Kantian ethics, that Hamolka and Bernardo’s actions were morally wrong.

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.