Plea Bargaining And Bail System: The Collapse Of The Criminal System

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

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.

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.

Moreover, there was a shift in the court systems, leaving many individuals without their right to due process. This meant that many of those being charged were not given a lawyer or counsel from the state, they could be pushed into taking a plea bargain under the impression that there is no other way out, and bail

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 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.

According to Professor Eve Brensike Primus, the Public defenders in “New Orleans Parish were handling the equivalent of 19,000 misdemeanor cases per attorney annually” (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). In effect, Professor Brensike estimates that each case received only about seven minutes (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). Arguably, spending just seven minutes per client is not quality defense. With such a high number of clients to represent, plea bargains become a reality for the majority of cases . The problem with the plea bargain, however, is the assumption of guilt. Pleading essentially equates to admitting guilt in exchange for a lesser punishment. Thus, even if a client believes in his innocence, an attorney may opt to ignore the pleas of innocence (Brensike, 2016, p.1776). Ignoring pleas of innocence go against the presumption of innocence, where defendants are “innocent until proven guilty.” Automatically defaulting to plea bargains does not fall under that presumption. Recognizing the problems when it comes to funding and caseload, some individuals have put forth ideas in the form of

Everything changes with time. Sometimes that change is good and sometimes it is bad. Unfortunately, change will happen whether people like it or not, therefore it is best to focus on the positive components of that change. One aspect of society that constantly changes over time is the Criminal Justice System. Luckily for humanity, most of the evolution that the criminal justice has gone through has been positive. The most positive of these changes has been the ongoing evolution of the defendants’ rights in the process of law. America is a society founded and based on freedom. Therefore, it seems only right that free people, until proven guilty, are treated as free and innocent people.

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

The entire plea bargain system has glaring issues of fairness, morality, and process. It needs an overhaul. Plea bargains are a way to “get rid” of some cases due to the sheer number of cases in the judicial system. There are not enough resources for most cases to reach trial. Innocent defendants are often pressured and coerced into accepting plea bargains. Prosecutors create uncertainty among defendants by aggressively handling each individual each often making threats that they can not actually back up. While this is fairly effective, it is not fair to the defendants. Additionally, it more time is spent on strategy and games then on discovering the truth. However, no case should receive biased treatment. Prosecutors sometimes blatantly

“...plea bargaining can benefit all concerned’ in a criminal case. There are advantages for defendants, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.”2 These advantages include a sure and quick sentencing for the defendant without the massive stress a trial would bring, a quick win for the prosecutor and more time to work on bigger cases, defense attorneys get their fee and are able to devote more resources to bigger cases, and judges are able to let everything go much faster within the court and allow other cases to get their fair and speedy trial. With all that there’s a lot of positive in the plea bargain for those involved, but there's even more when you look into the cost factor that goes into these trials and people working on the case. The plea bargain is suspected to save the states an estimated millions of dollars per year in legal fees and other such costs. Not only that but the plea bargain helps keep cases moving quickly and keeps the system from being bogged down like it is feared would happen if every single case went to trial. Despite all the good that plea bargaining does for our society and our judicial system nothing is without it’s downsides, and the plea bargain is no

Many people believe that plea bargains should be abolished because they see them as unconstitutional since plea deals take away a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. Accepting a plea bargain waives a defendant’s right to three of their basic rights protected by the constitution-the fifth amendment’s right against self-incrimination, the sixth amendment’s right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. The latter, has been made even more accessible by the 14th amendment which expands the sixth amendment not only to state courts, but also to federal

Nicholas Muia, I completely agree with you. Plea bargaining is the best thing for the criminal justice system. It is a waste of time to take someone to trial when the prosecutor has so much evidence, such as witnesses, DNA, and finger print to convict that person. Just give the person a plea deal up front, and make it easy for the judge, the defense attorney, and the prosecutor. I do not see why some people would agree to go through the entire process instead of that. Plea bargain save time, money, and reducing on the pain that the victim is suffer because we sometimes not release that, the longer the trial last is more the victim of the case has to suffer. That is why, I support the plea

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.