Plea Bargains And The Plea Bargain

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.

There are many advantages to plea negotiations/bargains. For instance, if there is not enough evidence against the defendant to convict them, a plea bargain can help the crown obtain a conviction. They are also good for spending less time and money on a trial in some cases. Lastly, because a plea bargain can help to

Based on the charged presented to someone a plea bargain, no matter how unusual may sound appealing. For example, if an individual was stop for speeding one night and was later found to be driving under the influence they could be charged with an OUI. Lets say this is not this persons first OUI and due to this being a recurring offence they will be facing jail time and a loss of license. After the individual was arrested their vehicle was searched and a large amount of money was found in a bank sleeve. In this instance the prosecutor offers, no jail time, and suspension of the license for 30 days opposed to year in exchange for the cash found in the vehicle. This would be an example of ad hoc plea-bargaining. It’s unethical perhaps for the prosecutor to suggest the defendant surrender his money to the state to receive a lighter sentence, however if the defendant does not with to do jail time and not having a license for an extender period of time could be devastating to them. Ad hoc plea-bargaining can also be exchanged in the other direction, from the defendant to the

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.

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

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 bargaining helps attorneys by saving time. Plea bargaining is generally fast and efficient. It allows attorneys to focus on bigger, more “important” cases which will impact society more. This relieves pressure on attorneys by not having to go to trial. Also it can impact attorney’s salaries. In some cases, it may be in their best interest to get rid of a case quickly. “Many states impose caps on the amount of allocated to the representation of indigent clients; these amounts do not provide adequate compensation for the time and expense of bringing a case to trial” (Guidorizzi 1998). The defendant can also benefit from a plea bargain. If the defendant pleads guilty without a trial then the prosecutor can drop one or more charges, reduce the charge, or recommend a specific sentence. Lastly the victim can also benefit from plea bargaining. A plea bargain can bring closure to the victim by knowing the person who is guilty is not getting away with the crime, Also the victim will not have to worry about testifying. (Guidorizzi

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.

When most people think of criminal sentencing they think of a grand wooden courtroom with a full jury and a proud judge in black presiding over it all, but that is far from the usual for those that are accused of federal crimes. The reality of what happens after you are accused of a crime is much different, as much of the bulk of those accused of a crime end up plea bargaining for a variety of reasons, and very few people actually end up going to trial. An in depth look is necessary to really understand the complicated truth of the relationship the plea bargain has with our justice system and our citizens. To understand the plea bargain it takes looking into what originally it was made for, what it represents now, and the effect it has on our

I believe that plea bargains are very important to the U.S. criminal justice system. Without having plea bargains our criminal justice system would be

The appearance of plea bargaining is it serves all parties involved in the court process, removing the unpredictability of the time a trial may take and the ultimate outcome (Bohm & Haley, 2001). The prosecution is benefited from a plea

Trials can take up weeks to months and with this process it makes the system run more smoothly and efficient. The main purpose of plea bargaining is this idea that the prosecutor may reduce the charge and offer the defendant a lesser offense. Though this appears to be a quick and easy fix, there are many issues with plea bargains. These issues include the encouragement for the

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 bargain provides that flexibility necessary to make adjustments and produce substantive justice (Neubauer qtd. in McCoy 325).

The concept of plea bargaining crimples the justice system as well as interferes with the work of the legislature. What ultimately suffers is the justice system, as the power to give a lesser sentence than determined by the law lies with the Judge after hearing the merits of the case. The same has also been put forth by the Supreme Court, where it held that it is settled law that on the basis of plea bargaining court cannot dispose of the criminal cases. Going by the basic principles of administration of justice merits alone should be considered for conviction and sentencing, even when the accused confesses to guilt, it is the constitutional obligation of the court to award appropriate