Plea-Bargains: Currency of the Courts An Examination of the Effectiveness of Plea-Bargain Within our Court Systems

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Plea bargaining may have advantages in America’s and Canada’s Justice System, but it also proposes an advantage for the accused criminal. It gives the defendant the opportunity to reduce sentence and provide a better, more comfortable stay in correctional facilities. It gives the opportunity for guilty criminals, who know a guilty sentence will be there if facing a jury, to plead guilty to the case for one’s own benefits. Rather than spending time presenting a losing case in front of a judge and jury, and losing plenty of money in court fees, the case can be wrapped up in a matter of agreement. Guilty defendants seem to be in a win-win situation and can use plea bargaining as a total advantage.

There are three types of plea bargaining. The first type is, Charge Reduction, which is defined as where the prosecutor’s office may choose to file the most serious charge warranted by the facts and evidence. The second form of plea bargaining is, Removal of Charges. Which is

Therefore, the weight of evidence will suggest that although charge negotiations increase resource efficiency, the accessibility to justice for the victim has proven to be effective only to a certain

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.

People have long debated whether plea bargaining is the best way to handle felony cases in the justice system. This article focuses on a reformed, institutionalized way to plea bargain. The author researches the King County Prosecutors rationalized approach to the way the Early Plea Unit handles their cases.

The plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal, copping a plea, or plea in mitigation) 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. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence

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

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.

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.”

Pleas don’t come without drawbacks or dangers. Some fear that an innocent defendant may be pressured into a confession and plea out of fear of a more severe penalty if convicted. Another drawback is that some vicious criminals will get lenient treatment and get less than they deserve and be back out in a shorter time. “More than 90% of convictions come from negotiated pleas, which means that less than 10% of criminal cases result in trial.” This statistic starts to answer a question I had about our system. “What are the effects of plea bargaining in our courts and should there be more control over them?” The obvious effects are that fewer cases actually go to trial. With less cases

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

Prosecutors may only "recommend" to the court the acceptance of a plea arrangement. The court will usually take proofs to ensure that the above three components are satisfied and will then generally accept the recommendation of the prosecution. The court uses the plea bargaining process as a way to alleviate the need to schedule and hold a trial on an already congested court calendar. Judges are also aware of jail/prison overcrowding and may be receptive to the "processing out" of offenders who are not likely to do much jail time anyway.

An individual can either withdrawal a guilty plea or appeal a guilty plea. When it comes to withdrawing a guilty plea there are certain circumstances that qualify. Firstly, when the court doesn’t accept a plea agreement that both parties approved of the defendant can withdraw the plea. Secondly, if the defendant pleads guilty when there hasn’t been any plea bargaining then he or she can attempt to withdraw the plea unless the prosecution disagrees then they might not be able to (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2015). Even if the plea is accepted by the court it can be withdrawn under limited circumstances such as if a defendant shows a “fair and just” reason for overturning the plea before sentencing (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2015).

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,