Plea Bargaining Video Analysis

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.

When we think of the concept of plea bargaining many negatively criticize it claiming that it aids away from serving justice that the criminal and legal system strives to aim for. Douglas Maynard writes about how an individual, Bradley Manning, requested a personal plea to president Obama due to the unexpected length of his sentence. Douglas Maynard in “Defendant Attributes in Plea Bargaining” discusses how concern should be given to how person-descriptions are used by changed parties in the negotiation of diverse cases such as Manning (Course Notes, Part 8). Seven areas are described ranging from beginning with negotiations to the structure of common sense knowledge. Two areas in particular stand out to me that are applicable to Manning’s

From the documentary there, was no evidence of foul play from the defense even though they had to climb mountains to reach the innocent verdict. I believe that most people would believe they had done what was morally right in this case after viewing the different actions that they had

Plea Bargaining: This is where the criminal pleads guilty for a reduction of sentencing from the prosecution.

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.

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.

Plea bargaining is an obstruction of justice and truth in stories presented by Frontline. The relevant actors of the courthouse including the judges, the prosecutor, and the defense attorneys use plea bargaining as a way to get cases of the docket, to punish all guilty defendants in any way possible, and to reduce time spent on the cases. It seems every one of the defendants interviewed by Frontline were given only one way out from the trouble they were in. In order to go home to their families or in order not to risk receiving a harsher sentence from the judge or jury at the trial, they ended up pleading guilty to all the charges laid out in front of them to get a lighter sentence.

When it comes to trials there is a great deal of uncertainty. There is no way to predict what a jury or judge will decide. A case that a lawyer thought would go one way could completely turn and do the opposite. This leads to the question of whether a case should be taken to trial or not. It is because of this that plea bargaining is often put to use. Plea bargaining is beneficial to the prosecutor as well as the defense attorney and the defendant. Plea bargains are based upon the mutual interest of all parties involved and they can occur for a variety of reasons.

In this paper, I will discuss what is plea bargaining, the benefits, controversy, requirements, and roles of actors. Plea bargaining Is an agreement between a defendant and a prosecutor, in which the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more serious charges, reduce the charge to a less offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence. The benefits of plea bargaining are the following.

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

In the video "How Statistics Fool Juries," Oxford mathematician Peter Donnelly attempts to demonstrate through a number of examples how statistics, when viewed in a common manner, can be misunderstood and how this can have legal repercussions. Through a number of thought experiments, Donnelly provides the audience with examples of how seemingly simple statistics can be misinterpreted and how many more variables must be taken into account when calculating chance. Primarily he exposes the audience to the concept of relative difference, or the difference in likelihood between two possibilities in the same scenario. He then goes on to explain that without an understanding of this concept, many juries misunderstand statistics used in trials and very often convict people based on this faulty understanding.

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.

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.

Roughly 90% of all criminal cases in the United States are resolved with a plea deal. This statistic is shocking upon first glance. The sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, yet 90% of cases never make it that far. In fact, some never make it to the Grand Jury at all. Over countless decades of practice, the notion of plea bargaining has become prevalent to the point of normality. However, when taking into account the idea that those 90% of criminals will never stand trial, nor even see a jury, it is astonishing. From the moment the supreme court recognised plea bargaining as a legitimate practice to today, debates have raged over its effectiveness, morality, and constitutionality. Despite the heated controversy,

You know how sometimes you’re waiting in line, and the person a few spots ahead of you is in an argument with the cashier? It sucks. That one person is holding up the entire line just because they are incapable of coming to an agreement with the cashier. And now, because of them, your entire day is thrown off, simply because two parties could not reach a mutual agreement with each other. In a nutshell, this is plea bargaining. Imagine that the person a few spots ahead of you is a prosecutor and the cashier is the defendant in court. It is the exact same thing. Plea bargaining is a term used when the two parties reach a mutual agreement in a court of law. Usually it involves a little bit of give, and a little bit of take from both parties,