Response To Plea Bargaining

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.

In all, plea bargaining serves various functions; nonetheless, the main purpose of plea bargaining is to improve “the administrative efficiency of the courts” (Wheatley 1974 in Goff, 2014, pg. 261). For instance, with plea bargaining, the courts can quickly garner a plea of guilty, and thus, a sentence can be provided for the accused, rather than attempt to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, Ken Chasse (2011) identifies other advantages of plea bargaining such as cost-saving, no consequences for violating the law and constitutional rights by the courts since the matters of plea bargaining are not reviewable (pg. 1). Furthermore, the “sentence can be known beforehand… [, and thus,] victims can be consulted more precisely about the outcome before sentence is imposed”, disclosure and discovery will not be known, “no trial errors” or reversals of the outcome by appeal courts, and both sides can also claim victory (Chasse, 2011, pg. 1).

I do not agree that we should offer someone a sentence bargain. If the individual committed the crime then he/she should have to do the time. So, when Justice Stewart wrote in Blackledge v. Allison that plea bargaining “can benefit all concerned”, I think that is only partly correct. Sure it benefits defendants, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges, but what about the victims or their families. I like what District Attorney Gibbons was trying to do, if it was all or none with no exceptions. The only time that I feel that plea bargains should not be used is in any murder or rape charge.

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

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

Because plea bargains are so controversial, it is no surprise that there are pros and cons of using them. Some of the pros include: allowing both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial, or allowing criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge. However, on the contrary, plea bargains often make the defendant feel forced to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she may be found guilty at trial. Often times plea bargains lead to poorly operated police investigations and attorneys may not take the proper efforts and time to prepare their cases.

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

I would like to add to these negatives that defendants who are not actually guilty of the crime, will sometimes take the lighter sentence instead of asserting their constitutional right to a fair trial because they cannot afford top notch legal defense (Levenson, 2013). Some others who are not actually guilty of the crime will accept the plea bargain because they are afraid of being convicted and want to spend the lesser time incarcerated. Lastly, a big negative regarding overcharging and plea bargaining is that once a defendant pleads guilty, they forfeit their opportunity to appeal their case at a later date (Levenson,

This is the reality of plea bargaining. It is a scare tactic used on the defendants in order for the judges and prosecutors to get the guilty verdict and a sentence that they want. Plea bargaining gives judges the chance to escape trying a lengthy trial. It gives prosecutors certainty of jail time or fines that the state wants. For the defendants, they may get to go home that day with probation and might not be sent to jail or receive a lesser sentence. But these

Unfortunately, there is not an option that accurately expresses my opinion on the subject, but I think that the closest answer is that: Plea bargaining can be used, but it is used too much. The practice of offering a plea bargain to a criminal which will allow the offender to have charges against them dropped and served shorter sentences has been in practice since the 1800’s (N.A., 2017).

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 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.

A plea bargaining should be abolished because it allows the defendant the opportunity to take a lesser charge for a crime that has affected the lively hood or live of a person. The plea bargain for a defendant with a federal drug charge in 2012 was five years and 4 months verse a defendant who goes to court will receive sixteen years (William & Mary Law, 2016). Looking at the comparison, it is unfair for society to allow this practice to continue without implementing some accountability.

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.