The process of plea-bargaining is an issue viewed in various lights based on the individual’s role in this judicial process. Plea-bargaining may be beneficial to the rightfully accused allowing them a lighter sentence; however, if wrongfully accused, it could afford them their freedom.
A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case where a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to end the case against the defendant before it goes to a judge or jury trial. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to a more minor offense than charged or to a smaller number of offenses than charged in exhange for a more leniant sentence or fine. Since the early 19th century, plea bargaining has played an essential part of the American criminal justice system. Research has shown that more than 90% of all felony criminal cases in urban areas of the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial. (“Plea Bargains: Why and When They’re Made.” 2002. FindLaw. 10 Mar 2004. http://criminal.findlaw.com/articles/1489.html>).
There are several reasons for plea bargains. In most cases, the plea bargain is to avoid the uncertainty of the jury trial. In other cases, a defendant may have pertenant information regarding other criminals allowing the broader prosecution of other crimes. And in still other cases, prosecutors may be convinced that they have the right defendant and an accurate charge as to the crimes committed but lack the evidence necessary to bring the successful conviction against them. Regardless of the reasoning behind plea bargining, the process is brought into motion upon the descretion of the prosecutor. The empowerment of legal sentencing through the prosecutor brings many questions regarding the legitimacy of the process and the effects that it may have on the accused, regardless of guilt or innocence.
The Essay on The Importance Of Plea Bargaining In Criminal Trials
... York, 79% of all first degree murder cases are plea bargained. Without plea bargaining, many of these criminals would never even see a jail cell. ... testimony of the defendant. With verification and most of the time when the actual truth is known the process of plea bargaining is ...
Prosecutors generally have wide discretion as to the charges they may bring, and therefore tend to charge the defendant with the most extreme charges that are applicable to the situation at hand. In fact, in September of 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a new directive in plea bargaining to all federal prosecuters. In the directive, General Ashcroft required the federal prosecutors to charge defendants in all federal cases with “the most serious, readily provable offense” and to detour from negotiating pleas in the future. (Liptak, Adam. “New Plea Bargain Limits Could Swamp Courts, Experts Say.” The New York Times 24 September 2003, National).
However, critics believe this directive has not slowed the usage of harsh sentencing in acquiring a guilty plea. Many believe that prosecutors, as appointed government officials, infringe a conflict of interest in the judicial system.
According to Carl E. Person, a civil litigator from the state of New York, the nation’s prosecutors are nothing more than a modern version of the “Court of Star Chamber”. (or “Star Chamber”; an equity court for criminal justice in which the King and his/her advisors or Council had control of the court to such extent that the judges of the court did not have to follow any rules, and practiced at their own discretion) (Person, Carl E. 21 05 2002. 01 Mar 2004. http://www.lawmall.com/pleabarg/).
Many believe that the unregulated discretion of the prosecutors and their use of extreme sentences is a denial of the equal protection of law. On the other side, victims of crimes may feel that the prosecutions discretion violates their rights to seek punishment of crimes committed against them. The role of the courts is to stand between the government and the individual ensuring the legal protection of the individual.
The Term Paper on The Plea Bargaining Process
... ever an instance where a prosecutor can be relieved from fulfilling a plea bargaining agreement? The courts stated “if a defendant conceals relevant facts such ... 326) “Count bargaining is often used when the defendant has engaged in essentially a single criminal act but the law specifies several separate ...
Once negotiated, a plea bargain removes any legal protection ensured by the courts. However, victims have successfully lobbied to pass anti-plea-bargaining laws in some states, depending on the crime. For instance, 17 states have statutes, case law or policies prohibiting plea-bargaining where alcohol is involved in the crime, such as vehicular homicide due to drunken driving. These include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming. (“Anti-Plea-bargaining.” MADD. 10 Mar 2004. http://www3.madd.org/laws/law.cfm?LawID=ANTI).
Although no one has successfully lobbied for changes in the laws concerning the defendant’s rights, many individuals have sounded out regarding several of the key concerns. One of the most concerning violations is that to a defendant and the protection of their constitutional rights. The sixth amendment clearly states that the accused has the right to a trial of their peers, and the right to face their accusers. However, when a defendant accepts a plea agreement, defendants no longer hold these rights. Without an actual finding of guilt by a judge or jury, the accused only becomes a criminal upon his or her own admission.
While the negotiating process in conducted by the prosecutor with the defendant, it is important to note that it is only entered into with the approval of the court. If the plea bargin is found to be disapproving, the judge will reject the agreement, and send it back to the prosecutors for renegotiation, and resulting in the one and only time the case is viewed by the judge. Some argue that the plea bargaining system places strong pressure on defendants to plead to crimes that they know that they did not commit, and that the outcome of a plea bargain may depend strongly on the negotiating skills and personal demeanor of the defense lawyer, which puts persons who can afford good lawyers at an advantage.
Statistics have shown that for every one criminal conviction that comes after a trial, 19 other cases settle by plea-bargaining, saving the government and taxpayer’s time and money. (Kinsley, Michael. “Why Innocent People Confess: It’s not a breakdown of American justice. It’s American justice working as design.” Slate 12 12 2002. 02 Mar 2004 http://slate.msn.com/?id=2075319).
The Research paper on Law Case Analysis
Law Case Analysis Material Facts and Source of Law The plaintiff William Shelensky was a director who owned a minority stockholder of Defendant Corporation called Chicago National League Ball Club, which operated Chicago Cubs. The Cubs had been suffering operating losses from direct baseball operations from 1961-1965. The director defendant Philip K. Wrigley who owned 80% stock shares did not ...
One must also take into considering that if all criminal cases were to go to trial, the court system would be overwhelmed and defendants would wind up spending more time in jail waiting to go to trial. Many have argued that the American criminal justice system would simply cease to function without plea-bargaining, and that it forms a negotiating process allowing the accused and his accusers to reach an agreement which settles the case once and for all, in a spirit of judicial fairness.
