Prosecutorial Athletes And Prosecutors : The Price Of A Deal?

But while this revelation complicates and adds relevance to Rakoff's topic, he also asks “What's wrong with that?” – a variation of “so what?” In answer to this question, he says that plea bargains are “secret negotiations” that “invite[] arbitrary results.” Both innocent and guilty defendants, in other words, are placed in the same pot, and the goal is to achieve the appearance of fairness, not the realization of it. Considering ninety-seven percent of federal convictions are the results of guilty pleas (Rakoff), that is a haunting injustice.

“The advantages, gamesmanship, and leverage that account for a plea bargain override an honest and fair assessment of truth” (Strutin, 2013). This statement is painfully accurate. Yale Law Journal (1972) states that “the elimination of the maximum number of trials” is the purpose of the plea bargain. Plea bargains are a largely a result of a need for speed and efficiency in the courts. “However, efficiency comes at a significant cost: innocent defendants are induced to plead guilty” (Gilchrist, 2011). In many, cases plea bargains are too efficient. “These wrongful convictions not only harm the innocent persons who plead guilty; they undermine the reliability of all convictions” (Gilchrist, 2011). This brings controversy over all plea bargains .Speed and efficiency should never be placed over reaching the correct verdict. All that is needed for a plea bargain is admission from the defendant; however, a defendant cannot convict themselves with a testimony in trial. This practice illustrates the controversy of plea bargains as compared to more reliable trials. Plea bargains allow for defendants to be coerced into giving false admissions of guilt. Additionally, defendants are confused by their emotions during the plea bargain process.

Plea bargaining is used for a verity of reasons, from lessoning the case burden on the prosecutor to helping them win, what they felt was an unwinnable case. The most controversial part of plea bargaining is that it occurs in private, and is only between the defense and the prosecutor. By hiding the dealings behind plea bargaining prosecutors are able to make “wink wink” deals where they might lessen the charges for one of the defenses attorney’s clients and the defense will encourage another client to accept a deal from the prosecutor. One of the biggest problems with plea bargaining is that innocent people could be found guilty, because they feel coerced into accepting a plea, because if they go to trail (for a crime they didn’t commit) and are found guilty they serve a lot more time than they would have if they accepted the prosecutors

“...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

Dershowitz, I want to first ay that I agree that officers should be accountable for their actions. I understand that officers use the what is called the "Blue Shield of Silence" which simply means that the officers would keep quiet if there were investigated by Internal Affairs or by fellow officers. If the judges have to believe the officer over the criminal at all times, the judge should be presented with all the officers before the trial and make sure that the accounts of the event are accurate. Officers will make will always ensure that one of their own is protected. I understand the code is important, but sometimes the wrong person is accused and may lead to the public not trusting the legal system. What's to say that the prosecutors are not in on convicting the wrong person. The legal system should be monitored differently I know the supreme court is like the last defense. Someone or a group that is not influenced should be on the trail to make sure that the trial went how it supposed to go and that no one's rights were violated. When you said that you had a client that was committed of wrongdoing, and the officer denied everything under oath, the officer should've be sent to a board or hearing. If someone lies under oath, they can do time and the legal system should be accountable also. Officers have too much leniency with the legal system and that kind of hurts the public and the ones that do their

Despite the fact that many people believe that the criminal justice system is similar to TV crime shows like CSI, Criminal Minds, and Law and Order, the real criminal justice system does not work in such a way as it portrays in these shows. For example, on these crime shows, most cases get solved and are brought to justice via a court trial. Nonetheless, in reality many cases are solved in a plea bargain. Plea bargaining is one of the most controversial issues in the United States. The practice of plea bargaining is necessary due to fact of the high crime rates, and lacking facilities and staffs to try all cases. First of all, let’s find out what is the plea bargaining? Plea bargaining is an arrangement between a prosecutor and a defendant

Plea-bargaining is known as a practice of negotiation where the prosecutor makes certain sacrifices and gives a lesser charge or sentence to the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea. Plea-bargains are done out of court, when one side begins to arrange a potential plea bargain. However the plea bargain does not go through until both the prosecuting side and the defense agree on it (Unconstitutionality). After both sides come to an agreement the plea bargain is brought before the judge, however the judge does not have to follow the prosecutor’s proposal. Some plea bargains may have to get the approval of the court before being upheld (Unconstitutionality). In plea bargains the defendants can plead guilty to some or all of the charges that

When plea bargains all began, it was being done for good comprehension. For example: Plea bargains were being offered to condemn felonies who would give up instructions on other unsolved felony’s that they were a part of, and in return they would collect a life penalty instead of the destruction discipline.

Prosecutors should absolutely be fined and sentenced for failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors have both a moral and ethical duty to be fair and present all of the evidence in the case. A prosecutor should never withhold critically important evidence that has the potential to change the defendant’s sentence. Additionally, in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that if a prosecutor has access to exculpatory evidence, he is required to share that evidence with the defense. The Supreme Court based this ruling on the Constitution’s due process clauses, holding that part of a prosecutor’s responsibility to seek justice is to make sure that all evidence, not just evidence that supports the prosecutor’s case, is

Before discussing the current state of plea-bargaining in the United States, it is necessary to first understand its history and subsequent expansion since 1970. Plea-bargaining has a well-establish history in the

Plea bargaining is sometimes referred to as “backdoor justice.” This is because plea bargains, which make up a vast majority of criminal proceedings, take place outside of the courtroom. They happen before or during a trial and sometimes the reasons are unknown to anyone not directly involved in the case. This tactic can work to the advantage of criminal defendants and their attorneys, but also presents certain problems, each of which will be addressed in turn. First, from a legal standpoint taking a plea bargain is a defendant waiving his right to trial which presents issue upon appeal. Second, plea bargains allow defendants to escape mandatory minimum sentences. Finally, outside of the legal realm, a defendant who accepts a plea deal is not

The appearance of plea bargaining is it serves all parties involved in the court process, removing the unpredictability of the time a trial may take and the ultimate outcome (Bohm & Haley, 2001). The prosecution is benefited from a plea

Thus the plea bargain was adopted. Notwithstanding, it is a practice that is hard for many to accept if they are the victim of crime and even more so if it is a violent crime. Plea

Plea bargaining has evolved as the 'primary means of dispensing justice in North America, ' according to The Canadian Encyclopedia. It is a loophole in the Canadian Criminal Justice System, and alleviates burden on those whom are convicted of major crime. Plea bargaining can be defined as “a form of negotiation by which the prosecutor and defense counsel enter into an agreement resolving one or more criminal charges against the defendant without a trial” (Herman, 1997, p. 1). Defendants in criminal cases are more than likely to plead guilty than go to trial. Part of the reason that most of them do is so that they can return for a lesser charge, a lighter sentence, a more comfortable prison, or an agreement to testify against someone else;

Prosecutors are immune from civil suits, but only in instances where their immoral actions were done of an administrative nature. Administrative actions include prosecutorial decisions and adversarial functions. Many illegal or immoral acts are not covered in the standards, and this provides an opportunity for lawyers to break the law. Also, many of the standards are not clear, which can lead to a misunderstanding. Majority of prosecutors’ actions are not in the public eye. This makes it easy to get away with committing immoral acts. Furthermore, most of the time prosecutors do not get convicted or disbarred. This provides the idea of “I have nothing to lose.” The only people who make complaints are defense attorneys when they file for appeals.