Plea Bargaining And Bail System: The Collapse Of The Criminal System

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

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.

Judge Jed Rakoff does precisely that in his article, “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty.” He begins by noting that “the criminal justice system bears little resemblance to what the Founding Fathers contemplated . . . [and] what the average American believes.” Due to plea bargains, jury trials in the United States are exceedingly rare, in spite of constitutional provisions for “a speedy and public” trial. If there is no trial, there can be no “speedy” trial, and that means that this constitutional right, for most, is a myth.

Many people believe that plea bargains should be abolished because they see them as unconstitutional since plea deals take away a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. Accepting a plea bargain waives a defendant’s right to three of their basic rights protected by the constitution-the fifth amendment’s right against self-incrimination, the sixth amendment’s right to a trial by jury, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. The latter, has been made even more accessible by the 14th amendment which expands the sixth amendment not only to state courts, but also to federal

Everything changes with time. Sometimes that change is good and sometimes it is bad. Unfortunately, change will happen whether people like it or not, therefore it is best to focus on the positive components of that change. One aspect of society that constantly changes over time is the Criminal Justice System. Luckily for humanity, most of the evolution that the criminal justice has gone through has been positive. The most positive of these changes has been the ongoing evolution of the defendants’ rights in the process of law. America is a society founded and based on freedom. Therefore, it seems only right that free people, until proven guilty, are treated as free and innocent people.

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.

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

Jimmy Santiago Baca is a winner of the International Prize for his work in, A Place to Stand. The making of a poet. He writes, “I had no money. There is no way I’m going to make bail” (Baca, 187). In some cases, prisoners are only locked up because they had to get appointed a defense attorney who convinced them to plead to the charges so they would not have to go to trial and risk getting an extended amount of time. District attorneys are elected by the citizens and those people want someone who is tough on crime. If the district attorney is not tough on crime, the people will not reelect him. This can lead to many innocent lives being wasted; For instance, some criminals will sit in a cell for decades for the smallest offense. However, if a prisoner attempts to plead not guilty and the case goes to a trial by jury and they do find him or her guilty, they will be sentenced to an even longer term. It is obvious that our justice system is unfair and against human morals and ethics. They are somehow “innocent until proven guilty” yet they cannot afford to prove themselves innocent. Not only is poverty a reason for the rising increase in the population of inmates, many lack the education needed to understand the law or what they are being accused of.

“...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

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.”

Moreover, there was a shift in the court systems, leaving many individuals without their right to due process. This meant that many of those being charged were not given a lawyer or counsel from the state, they could be pushed into taking a plea bargain under the impression that there is no other way out, and bail

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.

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.