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
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
It all starts with backed up courtrooms. A man is charged with killing another man. There is no evidence to convict this man of these charges. This leads the prosecutors to work out a plea-bargain. The pressure of other cases and the need for a guilty charge is what leads plea-bargaining to happen more every year. As a result many criminals get off easy and in return prosecutors look good for winning the case.
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.
One reason a plea bargain may occur is because a prosecutors evidence is not as strong as they would like. Prosecutors want their cases to be as strong as possible so that they can expect a win. If they are unsure of what the outcome may be, they prefer to find a way to avoid going to trial. Plea bargains offer prosecutors a speedy conviction without committing to the necessities of a trial. However, this does not only help the prosecutor. The accused may find reduced charges, reduced defense costs, and sometimes even a shorter sentence than originally planned.
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).
What is Plea Bargaining? Plea Bargaining is the pre-trial arrangement, which happens in a criminal methodology. Amid this system, the respondent and has his lawyer sits on one side, and the prosecutor is on the other. The litigant either consents to argue "blameworthy" or "no challenge" to a wrongdoing. Another component for plea bargaining would likewise be because the respondent uncovers data, for example, area of stolen merchandise, names of others taking part in the wrongdoing or affirmation of different crime’s, for example, a series of robberies. Consequently, a decrease in charges, or rejection of a few charges, this must be endorsed by the judge, before tolerating can occur. On the off chance that the judge does not concur, at that
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.
On top of this, plea bargains provide an alternative option if the person in question does not want to wait for their trial for extended periods of
No one knows how juries will react in certain situations. For most defendants the incentives far outweigh the disadvantages. One benefit is receiving a lighter sentence on a lighter charge than they would have received if gone to trial and lost. They pretty well know that they will be found guilty so they help the court by pleading guilty and saving them time. In return, the court offers a lighter sentence for the plea. Another benefit of plea-bargaining is monetary. If represented by private counsel, the defendant usually spends a bundle on their fees. It takes less time and effort to go through a plea bargain that does a trial. Some other reasons are to have less socially stigmatizing offense on one’s record. Another is just to avoid publicity and the hassle of minor offenses.
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.”
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.
One of the major reasons that people strongly dislike plea bargains is that they are seen as swift, and impersonal to the parties involved. On the flip side, isn’t this a positive thing? Anything that goes to courts
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.