Essay On Plea Bargaining

It has been brought up that certain race and ethic affects a person’s sentencing. Many studies have addressed the question are African Americans treated more severely than similarly situated whites? (Mitchell, 2005). Observers had indeed noted that black defendants get more severe sentencing than white defendants do (Spohn, 1981). For many years’ social scientist has examined this theory and came up with three explanations, racial discrimination, Wealth discrimination, and legal factors (Sellin, 1928). These three explanations all direct back to blacks because blacks are more likely to be poor, so they are wealth discriminated. Also, legal factors point to blacks because black defendants are more likely to have a serious charge or criminal record than whites do. Some researchers examine whether race has an impact on juveniles being convicted in the adult system (Howell, 2012) as well.

When looking at illegal actions and activities, also known as crimes, people of all color commit them. Whether people commit lesser or more excessive crimes, the action will be committed by a multitude of races. People of all colors are able to achieve the standards that have been set by society. When looking at the statistics, the evidence shows that people of color, especially African Americans tend to get harder and more solemn charges for the crimes that they have committed. What people might not notice is that there is a racial bias in the judicial system. That bias is changing the outcome of indictments. With all of the change going on in the United States of America, one untouched subject is the racial bias in the judicial system. If a change does not occur now, then when will there ever be a change? There is a racial bias in the judicial system, and a change needs to occur now.

A plea bargain is a negotiation between the defendant and their attorney on one side, and the crown prosecutor on the other side. A plea bargain may give the defendant a lightened sentence, in exchange for either confessing to some crimes, or giving information that is related to the offence, for example, the location of stolen goods or the names and locations of other participants, as well as their part in the offence.

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

The practice of plea-bargaining is a controversial issue that both benefit the court and the criminal. Plea-bargaining was not always wide spread throughout the court system. Today it is a main practice for prosecutors to put away criminals, even if it is for lesser charges. Plea-bargains happen for many reasons and are beneficiary and negative to everyone involved the process.

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed. It’s not just black versus white, it is white versus white, and white versus oriental, whatever the case may be, and it is not justice. If we see patterns then the judges should have the authority to say something. Jury nullifications cannot be overturned regardless of the cause. Exclusionary rule, according to CULS (2010) – Prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of U.S. Constitution; like unreasonable search and seizure (Fourth Amendment).

At the prosecution stage, African Americans are subject to racially biased charges and plea agreements (TLC, 2011). African Americans are less likely to have their charges dismissed or reduced or to receive any kind of alternate sentencing than their white counterparts (TLC, 2011). In the last stage, the finding of guilt and sentencing, the decisions of jurors may be affected by race (Toth et al, 2008) African Americans receive racially discriminatory sentences from judges (TLC, 2011). A New York study from 1990 to 1992 revealed one-third of minorities would have receive a lesser sentence if they were treated the same as white and there would have been a 5 percent decrease in African Americans sent to prison during that time period if they had received the same probation privileges (TLC, 2011). African Americans receive death sentences more than whites who have committed similar crimes (Toth et al, 2008). Because of the unfair treatment from the beginning to the end of the justice system there is an over represented amount of African Americans in prison (Toth et al, 2008). Some of the problems faced by African Americans in prison are gangs, racial preferences given to whites, and unfair treatment by prison guards (Toth et al, 2008).

After legal challenges began on behalf of defendants disputing the constitutionality of the Sentencing Reform Act and the Guidelines, the Commission was given the task of monitoring the effects of federal sentencing practices and revising amendments to the Guidelines if problems arose for congressional approval. In 1990, Congress directed the Commission to respond to a series of questions raised in regards to the Guidelines, the effects of mandatory minimums and options and options for Congress to exercise its legislative power in statutory directive and organization (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The 1991 report was a “preliminary assessment of short-tem effects” of the Guidelines on federal sentencing practice (1991 U.S.S.C. Report). The report conducted empirical research study requested by Congress to “assess the effect of mandatory minimum sentencing provisions on the eliminating unwarranted sentencing disparity as well as description of the interaction between mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and plea agreements” (1991 U.S.S.C. Report).

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 article elaborates the racial inequalities of black minorities in the Criminal Justice system. It reflects the difference arrest rate and concludes that the black are more likely to be arrested and sentenced to prison in terms of their White group. Indeed, it also shows the historical facts of high crime and the arrest rate of black minorities or African Americans in the Criminal Justice system. In general, it appears that Blacks represent a greater proportion of arrests for more violent, personal offenses than for property or victimless crimes. Also, it represents that the proportion of arrests for illicit drugs also high for Black group. The article represents that black conviction rate are much higher in comparison to whites.

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

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.

Although Plea bargaining can save time and money, it may lead to a lack in public confidence in whether the courts are ‘just’ (Caenegem, 1999), it can be viewed as a limitation of the adversarial system because the prosecution compromise and allow defendants to shorten their own sentences rather than the jury deciding the degree of culpability (Marcus et al. (2016). The French inquisitorial system does not permit defendants to plead guilty. Even if a charge is not contested a court must produce ‘objective proof’ of guilt. (Goldstein & Marcus. (1977), defendants in the French system are regarded as subjects of investigation and as such it is the burden of the prosecutor to prove guilt (Pakes, 2015). The French system fits in with a quote produced by Marcus et al (2016) which