Against Plea Bargains

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.

According to Professor Eve Brensike Primus, the Public defenders in “New Orleans Parish were handling the equivalent of 19,000 misdemeanor cases per attorney annually” (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). In effect, Professor Brensike estimates that each case received only about seven minutes (Brensike, 2016, p. 1771). Arguably, spending just seven minutes per client is not quality defense. With such a high number of clients to represent, plea bargains become a reality for the majority of cases . The problem with the plea bargain, however, is the assumption of guilt. Pleading essentially equates to admitting guilt in exchange for a lesser punishment. Thus, even if a client believes in his innocence, an attorney may opt to ignore the pleas of innocence (Brensike, 2016, p.1776). Ignoring pleas of innocence go against the presumption of innocence, where defendants are “innocent until proven guilty.” Automatically defaulting to plea bargains does not fall under that presumption. Recognizing the problems when it comes to funding and caseload, some individuals have put forth ideas in the form of

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.

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

Perhaps the prosecutor knows that he will win the case. If he/she has enough evidence to convict the defendant it may be that the defense attorney suggests that a plea bargain would be best for his/her client. Sometimes plea bargains are offered when the defendant releases information about other crimes they are aware of. In return, they get the possibility of reduced charges that I mentioned earlier. Once again, the benefits of plea bargains are mutual to everyone involved. While there may be many different reasons as to why a plea bargain may occur, these are just a few

The criminal justice system is in constant demands of a lot of logistics and resources to maintain its functionality. Many of these come with the high price of trying accused persons. Nevertheless, there has been a long-established common law component that affords the accused to cop out in return for a reduce sentence. “A plea bargain is an agreement by the defendant to plead guilty to charges in exchange for something of benefit to them.” (Hayden, 2017, p. 377). Thus, a person who is alleged to have committed a specific crime is able to plead guilty and get a lighter sentence. At face value, it appears to be a good thing that produces a win-win situation for the criminal justice system as well as

Defendants can have their cases completed quickly, meaning guilty pleas can often be arranged within minutes while criminal trials can take days, weeks, or months. It is also beneficial for defendants because plea bargaining gives the defendant and prosecutor some control over the result decision. Plea bargaining not only benefits the defendants it also benefits attorneys because they can solve the case fast and do not need to prepare for trial and can work in other cases, also they get their fee quickly. Public defenders may reduce the large caseloads, and last but not least it keeps judges away from trials which consumes time.

In some cases, plea bargaining does not undermine our criminal justice system because the defendant should be allowed to weigh their options; especially because this plea will affect their lives. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge can benefit the defendant in multiple ways; such as, it can save them paying extensive lawyer bills or maybe they don’t wish to spend their whole life in jail. However, if the prosecutor or even the judge bullied and threatens the defendant into accepting the plea bargain; that action is undermining our criminal justice system. Our criminal justice system states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and it is the responsibility of the state to prove one’s guilt. Yet in the case of Charles Gampero, Erma Faye Stewart, or anyone else mentioned in the documentary; either their lawyers or appointed judge were not even concern with the defendant’s innocence or guilt. Plea bargains should not be forced onto a defendant but given as an option, there is no need for threats or bullying; that action is what undermines our criminal justice system. This action—and also a statement made during the documentary—everyone who shows up in court is considered guilty

Looking at an prosecutor's point of view; plea bargains are effective. Plea bargains result in convictions, and prosecutors are measured by their conviction rate. Most prosecutors would want to spend a week negotiating a plea for a lesser conviction. Than spend a year to meet a greater conviction. They can still up their conviction rate, and claim to be tough on crime, while doing it in a much more efficient way. Any experienced prosecutor knows how much of a gamble a trial is. Plea agreements are known to be a sure thing.

Defendants generally are given plea bargaining negotiations “for one or more of the following reason: (a) reduce a charge, (b) elimination of a possible waiver to the criminal court, and (c) agreement for dispositional program… Any plea deal must be entered voluntarily and intelligently, or the conviction could be overturned on appeal (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504) There are many pleas that a defendant may choose to enter in court. Guilty, not guilty, an Alford Plea, and also nolo contendere, also known as “no contest”. A guilty plea is when the defendant is admitting their guilt to the crime, and giving up their rights to the trial, “more than 90 percent of defendants plead guilty (Siegel & Welsh, 2009, p. 504).” When a defendant pleads not guilty they are saying that they believe that they did not do anything wrong. An Alford Plea is when a defendant is pleading guilty but still claims their innocence.

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

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.”

A plea bargain (“offer”) is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecuting agency may offer the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with a proposal of a lighter than the maximum sentence. This opportunity allows defendants to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial on a more serious charge. This also allows all involved parties to keep the court’s calendars light without exhausting resources of a court, potential public defenders, and prosecutors who are all salaried for by the expense of tax payers. If every case in the criminal justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down.

Plea bargains are a negotiation between a prosecutor and defendant, in which the defendant will agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. There have been mixed feelings about plea bargains recorded over the years, including arguments that say a plea bargain denies the defendant the right to a fair trial, as well as a long wait time for a trial (Savitsky, 2012). This can cause a serious dilemma for the defendant, in which it may be better to take the lighter sentence, regardless if the defendant is guilty or not, as other problems, like paying for legal help, may be more costly in the end (Savitsky, 2012). This does not deliver justice, and can only hurt the defendant, as having a criminal record can effect rate of employment and contribute to the high recidivism rate of United States

An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence. It is really impossible to predict what a jury is going to decide in a trial. I personally think that plea bargaining is being used as an easy way out; instead of having the person who committed the crime pay for what they did by serving the whole time. By managing a plea bargain the terms can sometimes be used to include pondering on how it works and who it can help.