Plea-Bargaining: A True Bargain or a Bad Deal?

Based on the charged presented to someone a plea bargain, no matter how unusual may sound appealing. For example, if an individual was stop for speeding one night and was later found to be driving under the influence they could be charged with an OUI. Lets say this is not this persons first OUI and due to this being a recurring offence they will be facing jail time and a loss of license. After the individual was arrested their vehicle was searched and a large amount of money was found in a bank sleeve. In this instance the prosecutor offers, no jail time, and suspension of the license for 30 days opposed to year in exchange for the cash found in the vehicle. This would be an example of ad hoc plea-bargaining. It’s unethical perhaps for the prosecutor to suggest the defendant surrender his money to the state to receive a lighter sentence, however if the defendant does not with to do jail time and not having a license for an extender period of time could be devastating to them. Ad hoc plea-bargaining can also be exchanged in the other direction, from the defendant to the

While plea bargaining proposes plenty of advantages through the court of law in America and Canada, it shows some disadvantages as well. First off, plea bargaining seems unlawful to many. Every American is entitled to a right to a fair trial by the court of law. Giving the opportunity to plea bargain is taking away from those constitutional rights. Defendants

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.

There are many advantages to plea negotiations/bargains. For instance, if there is not enough evidence against the defendant to convict them, a plea bargain can help the crown obtain a conviction. They are also good for spending less time and money on a trial in some cases. Lastly, because a plea bargain can help to

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

Plea bargaining is when the defendant and prosecutor negotiate an agreement between each other where the defendant pleas guilty to reduced charges.

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

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

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.

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

However, plea bargains may not be all that great towards the defendant. A defendant might choose to just plead guilty in order to not go through a lengthy trial process. The defendant may run the risk of pleading guilty to something that he or she may or may have not committed. If the defendant is innocent, they may ruin their record by pleading guilty to something that they did not do. Typically, the public might perceive plea bargains as a form of legal coercion towards the defendant. This may lead some to think that the plea bargain is just the criminal justice system's way of ruining the lives of ordinary citizens because the counselors are literally bypassing the chance for a defendant to defend themselves. If a defendant enters a plea bargain, they surrender their innocence. The courts benefit tremendously from plea bargains, but the defendant is the one who truly has to pay for everything. The defendant might receive a lighter sentence but they are the only receiving

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

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.