“95 percent of all convictions result from a guilty plea” according to the documentary called The Plea. One might ask, why there are so many guilty pleas? The answer lies in a criminal court system method called plea bargaining. After a prosecutor decides to file charges through an information or complaint, a defendant may face a plea bargain. A plea bargain is when a prosecutor offers a sentence bargain, when charges are lessened, or a charge bargain, when whole charges are dropped, for a guilty plea. Many people argue against plea bargaining; when in reality, it is a needed component for the functioning of the criminal justice system.
The overall process of plea bargaining has many players and components. The plea bargain process can begin
…show more content…
If a defendant is truly innocent, then they have an undeniable right to a trial and a chance for acquittal through cross-examination of evidence and witnesses. As seen in Erma Faye Stewart’s case in The Plea, she claimed she was innocent but took the plea deal for a lesser sentence. The main prosecutorial witness in her case was found to be unreliable, which acquitted those who did not plea guilty, like Regina Kelley. Erma was still sentenced due to her guilty plea, but would have been acquitted if she had also been truthful in the court. This reveals not an issue of plea bargaining but of human nature. People fear pain, especially through incarceration, and may do whatever necessary to avoid said pain. The latter concept supports the argument by some that these pleas of guilt are coerced through threats of higher sentencing and pressuring lawyers. However, it still does not deny the fact that each individual must choose to plead guilty. Lying in court for a plea bargain is a risk that an individual takes for a reduced sentence. The system worked for Regina’s truthfulness and not for Erma’s
The author looks at the time period that the three were released and discusses the reason for their release, which is Alford plea. In this case, the defendant is voluntarily forced to plead guilty while still proclaiming his or her innocence. The author also looks at the evidence and ends up concluding that that there was little evidence that linked the defendants to the murder. In addition, the author criticizes the state’s government for forcing the men to plead guilty. Using another case, the author looks into this matter by examining the flaws related to the Alford’s plea.
1. What new vocabulary words did you come across? What are their definitions? Ambiguous.- having several possible meanings.
Defendants asked for leniency and the prosecutor offers a deal and they take it because they are tired of sitting in jail, but few realize that by taking
In this case, how do we reconcile the benefits of plea bargaining with the importance of justice? Our criminal justice system is a system where “95% of criminal defendants plead guilty to the charges against them” whether they are guilty or not (pg 11).
If there wasn't any plea bargaining, courts would be overcrowded and forced to be shut down. It is an advantage for the defense since it will be less work required on their part (Tapscott, 2017). Because plea bargains are much quicker and require less work, it keeps the cases moving and courtrooms unclogged. This works for both prosecutor and defendant since the case would close quickly allowing them to move on to bigger, serious cases. The benefit of agreeing to a plea bargain is that it de clogs the courts and the overcrowded jails.
Defendants are in great pressure to lie to their counsel regarding guilt or innocence. If the defendant decides to admit his or her guilt, it makes it difficult to help the defendant. Or if the defendant lies about involvement it is difficult to negotiate plea bargains or the plea agreement given. This scenario poses an ethical dilemma for the attorney, which is to permit a client to lie in court and plea guilty when they indicted their innocence. With the plea bargain the defendant is able to freely tell the truth with the knowledge that plea bargain will exist whether he denies guilt or not.
The controversy of plea bargains go with the stigma of using plea-bargains in every court case. Plea bargains can be useful,
Both sides will carefully weigh the strength of their case and decide whether it is prudent to go to trial. The prosecution may also consider the publicity surrounding the case and whether there is public pressure to prosecute that particular defendant to the full extent of the law. The defense will consider the individual defendant’s desire to go to trial and the seriousness of the potential sentence. The Pros of Plea Bargaining
When a person enters into a plea bargain agreement after coviented of a crime, that person who is being prosecuted have to make importants decisions. One of the most key decisions is how that person plead (Guilty or Not).“A plea is formal statement made on behalf of an accused person or made by the accused in court in response to the charge made against him” (Martin, 2003). Before a defendant plea Guilty or Not he/she have to enters into a plea bargains. A plea bargains are an agreement in a criminal case between the accuse person (defendant) and prosecutor usually involves the defendant pleading guilt in order to get reduced sentence, in stead of the case going before a jury. When a defendant accept a plea bargain he/she is giving up their Sixth Amendment to the United State Constituation.
Plea bargains are growing to resolve many cases. (Shetokas, 2014) According to the legal dictionary the sixth amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties: (1) the right to a Speedy Trial; (2) a public trial is allowed (3) have the right to have a fair jury; (4) knowledge of charges that are pending; (5) being able to cross-examine and confront the eyewitness; (6) the right to compel favorable witnesses to testify at trial through the subpoena power of the judiciary; and (7) legal rights to have an attorney. ( legaldictionary). With the fourteen
I do not think that the plea bargain lets someone off easy. While they might receive a lesser change they also are having the fact that they admitted to doing something taken into consideration by the court system when they decide on the punishment. I feel that it equals out in the long run for those who end up taking the plea bargain. In small cases yes the person might get off with just probation, but is probation was something in condensation then the crime could not have been that detrimental. They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone.
Prosecutors have the power to send offenders away which allows them to make harsh decisions. They offer plea bargains to offenders which often will enable them to do time in prison. Pfaff stated that "as long as prosecutors simply use the tough laws as a bargaining chip, not real punishment, legislators can reap the political benefits of looking tough on crime while avoiding difficult financial decisions" (Pfaff, 2017, P136). Prosecutors offer a plea bargain to get rid of cases quickly and not allow offenders to go to trial because they might receive more prison
Since the courts are backlogged and many public defenders and judges being overworked, this causes plea bargaining to be used repeatedly. According to Walker et al. (2018), plea bargaining leaves many people no option but to plea guilty even when this is not their best option. This is due to a multitude of reasons but mainly to receive a lesser charge. For example, a felony and little time in jail may be better than risking multiple felonies and an excessive amount of time in jail.
People plead guilty for crimes that are not committed by them to avoid trial, but by doing so the right decision wasn’t made.
The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities.