What Does The Kind Of Negotiation Going On The Most Heinous Criminal Crimes?

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.

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.

Plea bargaining has been around since the early 1800’s and is a process where the attorney for the defendant negotiates a plea with the prosecuting attorney. This process which was simple in the beginning has changed dramatically over the years. Prosecutors have made it seem they have evidence for serious crimes and get people to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Many people will accept a plea bargain out of fear of what will happen at trial. Everyday people who otherwise would have been acquitted due to lack of evidence or they are really innocent will plead guilty to a lesser charge. It wasn’t until 1970 with the United States Supreme Court case of Brady v. United States that the constitutionality of plea bargaining was established. Plea bargaining should be regulated so as not to harm the legal system any more than it has. Plea bargaining takes away a person’s right to be tried by a jury of their peers.

We discussed the recent mob uprising and the state of unrest in the community. It was the judgment of all present that the life of the defendant, even if the wrong man, could not be saved; that an appeal would so inflame the public that the jail would be attacked and perhaps other prisoners executed by violence. In the opinion of all of us a case was presented where the defendant, now that he had been convicted by a jury, must die by the judgment of the law, or else, if his case were appealed, he would die by the act of the uprising of the people (Pfeifer, “United”).

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.

The United States is plagued by the problem of mass imprisonment, with its prison population having risen by 500 percent in the last three decades. Because the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining, there is room for prosecutors to reduce mass imprisonment by exercising their wide discretion. At present, prosecutors likely do not give much consideration to the overcrowding of America's jails and prisons when making their plea bargain offers. However, if prosecutors were regularly advised of such overcrowding they might offer marginally lower sentences across the board. For instance, a prosecutor who typically offers a first-time drug offender a twenty-month sentence might instead agree to an eighteen-month

There are many ways of resolving the criminal cases as defined in the current criminal justice system. One of this ways is through the use of pleas bargain. Plea bargain happens way before the trial and occurs when defendant accepts the wrong doing. He or she can plead guilty of the crimes or changes where they get to accept lenient sentence that can even lead to dismissal of charges (Lippke, 2011). This is however a private process though it is being taken over by advocacy groups.

Historically, Colombia has opposed the ELN and their attempts at gaining power within the country. However, there has been corruption by government and military officials. The corruption comes in the way of support for the ELN (Stanford, 2012). Regardless of the corruption, the Colombian government is currently making strides to begin peace talks with the ELN in 2014; however, no specific dates have been established. (Insight crime, n.d.).

As Charles Bergquist observes, "Crises in Colombia tend to generate cycles of violence instead of mutations in the political regime." The reason is simple: regime changes in Colombia tend to produce very little change in anything other than nominal rule. Since Colombia's independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Colombia has seen a series of civil wars and secessions (Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama the last coming rather conveniently at a time when the U.S. was prepared to pay millions for a canal through its nation preparation that later resulted in a multi-million dollar redress to Columbia). Colombia's political history, therefore, has been colored by outside influences pulling on the two dominant liberal and conservative parties, with violent exchanges, and long periods of instability being the consequences. While regime changes have occurred, they have not produced significant improvements. Rather, Colombia in the 20th century has become a nesting ground for paramilitary forces and drug traffickers, with U.S. Central Intelligence operatives contributing heavily to the violent conflict that has risen between regimes. This paper will examine the regime types that preceded the Rojas Pinilla regime in mid-20th century Colombia, analyze their similarities and differences, and discuss the extent to which Rojas Pinilla reached his goals and objectives.

Posed with the question as to whether or not I believe plea bargaining serves a purpose in the American Criminal Justice system, I answer affirmatively. Plea bargaining results in the disposition of “…approximately 95% of all criminal cases…” (Bohm & Haley, 2014, p. 11) in an overloaded criminal justice system where cases oftentimes take years to resolve. Additionally, I believe plea bargaining should continue to be allowed, as it is a valuable tool that can be used to expedite cases through the criminal justice system (Bohm & Haley, 2014). Griffiths (2008) argues the possibility of the defendant receiving a reduced charge and/or a lighter sentence, less publicity and embarrassment for the defendant and his/her family, and less financial resources

The word “pardon” or “amnesty” is the term used when discussed in politics. In the criminal justice system, punishment and pardon are most common exercises. The court system usually decides to extend or reduce criminal charges against defendants entirely depending their evidence. Like punishment, pardon, mercy and forgiveness tap into the visceral, subliminal and non-rational side of public policy (Tait, 134). Pardons or punishments are dealt very delicately to avoid or control assertion towards reaction to the society because without a doubt the desire for justice is a natural instinct. It has become a desire for society to see transgressors receive a punishment equivalent with the harm they have done (Carlsmith, Darley & Robinson, 2002)(360

Under the government of the President James Monroe in 1822, U.S opened up relations with Colombia; with a strategical interest for both nations. The agreements were based in expanding commercial relations and strengthen amity. However, U.S relations with Colombia took a different turn as a result of a new era Colombia’s civil war and drug trafficking . The interest of improve the foreign policy and the security of both countries; In order to maintain the U.S relations with Colombia, an analysis of the conflict in Colombia has to be made to protect the U.S national interest.

Hostage negotiation is an important part of the criminal justice system, and is a tactic that is practiced by most branches of criminal justice. Almost every law enforcement agency in the United States has established either a hostage recovery team or has a crisis negotiator on staff (McClain, Callaghan, Madrigal, Unwin, & Castoreno, 2006). The point of hostage negotiation is for criminal justice professionals to reason with alleged perpetrators in hostage or barricade situations. There are five possible ways to resolve a hostage or barricade situation: SWAT team tactical assault and apprehension of the perpetrator, perpetrator killed, perpetrator suicide or escape, or negotiated surrender (Hatcher, Mohandie, Turner, & Gelles, 1998). While forcible actions are associated the most to law enforcement agencies, hostage negotiation is considered one of the most explicitly psychological law enforcement discipline, and it also provides the most desirable outcome to a hostage situation (Soskis & Zandt, 1986). More than 75% of hostage or barricade situations are successfully resolved through a negotiated surrender, and fewer than 10% of hostage or barricade cases result in loss of the perpetrators life (Hatcher, Mohandie, Turner, & Gelles, 1998).

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,