I believe that plea bargaining does serve a valuable purpose in our court systems. Plea bargaining assists Officers, Investigators, District Attorneys, and Witnesses from the prolonged process of the steps involved in going to a trial. In my own experience, I have seen witnesses have to come to court for hours, while missing work, just to see a preliminary hearing put off for another month or more. These processes take their toll on each person involved. I also believe that plea bargaining has to continue based on the system that we have in place. If we tried each case that comes through our court system, specifically in my jurisdiction, there is no way we would be able to provide enough attorney’s to conduct such a large quantity of trials.
Over the years plea bargaining has become the way for the Administration of Justice in America and Canada’s criminal trials. Accused criminals are giving up the rights to a fair trial, to indeed plead guilty, in order to receive a much lesser charge, more comfortable prison, or even to agree to testify against someone else. Fewer than ten percent of criminal cases brought up by the federal government even make it to the federal courts to be tried before juries each year. “According to one legal scholar, every two seconds during a typical workday, a criminal case is disposed of in an American courtroom by way of a guilty plea or nolo contendere plea” (Lynch, par. 1). Which ultimately means more than ninety percent of criminal cases are
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
Around 90% of all cases are resolved in a plea bargain. A plea bargain is when a prosecutor offers the defendant a lesser sentence if they plead guilty. A bargain will often be accepted if the defendant does not think they can win the case or does not have any compelling evidence. Plea bargains do not happen in court rooms. As depicted in the movie, plea bargaining can happen anywhere. For example, at around the 50-minute mark, Jack Ross offers Daniel Kaffee a plea of involuntary manslaughter outside the basketball court. Plea bargaining is one of the few court actions that do not happen in a court room.
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.”
The use of plea bargaining has been prevalent in the modern Justice system throughout generations. It was not until the early twentieth century that its use became common and admissible in courts. During the early twenties the great experiment of prohibition came about, legally this resulted in the over criminalization of many laws, and saw the courts swell far beyond overcapacity. Although it's been legally used for over a hundred years, the plea bargain saw its real start begin with this massive influx of criminals. Throughout its early history the plea bargain was seen as a tool to buy freedom, lawyers and judges did not try and hide the price tag of a reduced scented, naturally it was used as a tool of corruption. Even after the end of prohibition the United States government searched to over
In the United States, plea bargaining seems to determine the fate of criminal defendants, rather that trials. This is true in federal cases, but specifically in drug cases. An estimated three percent of federal drug defendants actually go to trial (Fellner). Also, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 50% of inmates are in federal prison for drug offenses. Of those in prison for drug offenses, evidence has shown that “defendants convicted of drug offenses with mandatory minimum sentences who went to trial received sentences on average 11 years longer than those who pled guilty (215 versus 82.5 months)” (Fellner). Harsh sentences for drug offenses has fueled climbing federal prison population since the anti-drug effort began in the mid-1980s.
Although many people may not like or appreciate the Plea bargaining clause in the criminal justice system but I think the plea bargaining is a good thing because it helps the criminal justice system to be processed more faster by helping the judges to get rid of numerous of case loads. If it wasn’t for plea bargaining, it would probably take criminals a longer time to appear before judges, which would lead the victims to wait for a longer time to see or gain justice. With that say, plea bargaining is a big helps to the criminal justice system, which I think that promote more good than bad regardless to which degree it results. In the meantime, when confronted with the choice to plea to a lesser charge in return for certain but less severe
Rebecca, I agree with your response regarding plea bargaining. I don’t believe plea bargaining is wrong, because one of the goals of the judicial system is to ensure justice is served. I feel as though plea bargaining works best for small cases, such as theft, where a victim may or may not have been involved in the crime itself. As for major cases, I feel as though the defendant shouldn’t be pressured into pleading guilty for a lighter sentence. The accused should exercise their constitutional rights and remain innocent until proven guilty. Although this may be time consuming and costly, I believe citizens in the community and possibly the victim may feel as though justice was served after going through the judicial process. Reason being is
I think that this is a debate in itself among the prosecutors and the defense because the prosecutors want to use it in hopes of getting more convictions instead of risking fighting a trial that is hard to get a guilty verdict from, while the defense try to resist plea bargaining as because they are willing to fight the trial due to the fact that there is bad evidence or no proof to get a guilty verdict. This is another reason why plea bargains are not going anywhere. The judges, however, are another story because they still to this day side with the prosecutors in wanting a lighter case load so that it gives more time for more important or time-consuming
Those involved in the plea bargaining process include: the Government, the defendant, the victim, and the Judges. The Government holds an interest because the judicial system is one of the three branches, it would be a travesty if the judicial system stopped caring about its own courts. The defendant has a vested interest in the proceedings because the result will affect the rest of his/her life. It is ultimately the defendant's choice to plead guilty. On the opposite side of the spectrum the victim, or the victim's family, wants justice to be served. In some state courts the victim is allowed to directly take part in the plea negotiations, however this is also a point of debate. As for the judges, it is their responsibility to finalize and accept the plea deal, or reject it if it is not satisfactory or violates a statute. Plea bargaining has become an integral aspect of the criminal justice system, however, despite the popularity of its use it is imperative that it be under constant scrutiny and evolution. With that in mind there are three programs that will be evaluated; first the practices of the federal courts; second a smaller look at queens district, New York; and finally a closer inspection of a former Alaskan
The question of “whether Plea deals are at all effective or do they just erode the criminal justice system?” has been raised for some time now. Plea bargaining has been closely scrutinized for many years by individuals who believe in justice being served within our courtrooms and fair-mindedness. I believe that plea bargains not only cripple and deteriorate our justice system but it negates justice altogether.
Consequentially, a plea bargaining is perceived to be right because it ultimately saves tax payers money (waiver of 6th amendment; no trial), punishes the defendant, and bring some justice to the offenders. In my opinion, a plea bargaining is not always “right.” There are many defendants who were innocent of crimes; however, because they were unable to afford good representatives and/or feared a wrong convincing and harsh sentences, they went with a plea bargaining. Meanwhile, we see many wealthy defendants with highly paid lawyers get off of crimes- defendants who were more than likely guilty. So no, I disagree. I can say that it’s more circumstantial. Also, if I had to plea to a lesser charge and I know I was not guilty of any crime I
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.
It has been understood that many successful criminal prosecutions in the United States end not with jury trial, rather yet plea bargain. Plea bargains are agreements between prosecutor and defendant, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in order to receive a lesser offence or sentence. “The mode of plea-bargaining is most closely associated with high volume, low-stakes cases like misdemeanors and low grade felonies, as well as cases in which the prosecutor and defense lawyer have a good relationship and a long history of past dealings,”(O’Hear,2008). Throughout the following report I will be creating a scenario as a prosecutor proposing a plea offer alongside with a role of defense counsel and preparing a counteroffer