The Benefits Of Plea Bargaining

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.

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

Ad hoc plea bargains typically involves some sort of an unauthorized form of punishment by the courts, and the criminal justice system. It’s said that these forms of bargaining are unreasonable and also unethical and unusual. Law professor and former judge Joseph Colquitt identifies examples of ad hoc plea-bargaining and identifies the forms they come in. First, of the court may impose an extraordinary condition of probation following a plea. Second, the defendant may offer or be required to perform some act as a quid pro for a dismissal or more lenient sentence. Third, the court may impose an unauthorized form of punishment as a substitute for a statutory established method of punishment. Forth, the state may offer some unauthorized benefit

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.

Brittany, I agree that there is good and bad that comes from bedsheeting and plea bargaining. However, it seems as though the government receives more of the good from the tactics, as citizens receive more of the bad from the tactics. Regarding the good, you mentioned plea deals reduce the strain upon the judicial system by reducing the number of trials that must occur. In addition to that, they assure a conviction, which looks good for the prosecutor, and lighten their caseload (Levenson, 2013). As for the defendant being overcharged, accepting a plea bargain provides them the opportunity for a lighter sentence on a less severe charge, and fewer or less serious offenses listed on their criminal record. For the defense attorney’s, they get to do less work and still get paid the same amount of money. For the correctional system, a plea deal may reduce the amount of inmates entering a facility as jail time can be suspended as a condition of the plea bargain (Levenson, 2013).

The criminal justice system relies heavily on the plea bargain. In order for the system to work the majority of defendant's must admit guilt and agree to a plea bargain for a lesser crime or sentence. (Pollack, 2015). It helps both the prosecutor and the client to accept a plea bargain deal. While many agree of the pros in plea bargaining such as reducing which cases go to trial and high conviction rates. It is also the least costly trial method. In the US felonies are much more likely to take a plea bargain than to not. While plea bargaining causes more innocent people to plead guilty it also gives defense attorney's heavier caseloads, limited resources, and leads to over criminalization. The advantages of having a plea jury would be to give

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

Plea bargaining is a problem. The criminal law typically authorizes draconian penalties; the three strikes laws. Also, the judge has the power to present defendants with unconscionable pressures. The judge offers to drop a three-strikes charge if the defendant pleads guilty. The defendant must now choose between the risk of life in prison if convicted at a trial. Then also, maybe a short-term or a suspended sentence following a guilty plea. The Supreme Court has accepted such pleas as voluntary.

Plea bargains have been a fundamental part of the United States justice system since the late 1800’s history.com. From the time the plea bargain was implemented, its constitutionality has been questioned. Although the arguments against plea bargains are justified, plea bargains are the best option for the time being. Removing plea bargains would resolve various issues in the United State’s modern justice system, but the complications resulting from such a change would be simply overwhelming.

Most Americans believe that when the government accuses someone of a crime the case goes to trial, where a jury hears arguments from the prosecution and the defense then ponders over the evidence before making a decision on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. This impression is very off. Criminal cases rarely go to trail, because 95% are resolved by plea bargains. Plea bargaining is when a deal is offered by a prosecutor as an incentive for a defendant to plead guilty. This incentive may be a lighter charge or lighter sentence. Some people are in favor of plea bargaining and others are not. I believe that plea bargaining is unconstitutional, undermines the

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

The main benefit to a judge for accepting a plea bargain is to expedite the number of cases being crossed off an often overburdened calendar. For the most part, a judge does not have time to take every case to trial. In addition, due to the crowded nature of jails today, should a criminal be convicted a judge may have no other choice but to release them depending on the nature of their crime. Therefore, a judge will often argue that plea bargains are an excellent way to avoid overcrowding problems by bypassing jail time for those who would not likely have spent much time in jail

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

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.

Plea bargaining is when a person has been charged with an offence and through bargaining with the prosecution they plea to a lower offence with a lower maximum penalty. This can affect an end result of two people, if they have committed the same offence, but one plea bargains and the other does not. For example is a sexual assault rape involving the gang rape of two 16 year old girls, the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) entered into a pleas bargain with the accused. In return for the guilty pleas, the DPP agreed not to mention that a knife had been used in the attack. This was done without the knowledge of the victims. This shows an inequality in plea bargaining in the criminal justice system.