The upside of accepting a plea deal usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser charge, or to only one of several charges. The agreements allow prosecutors to turn their attention and resources on other cases, and reduce the number of trials that judges need to attend. Though by accepting a plea deal one pleads guilty to one charge which usually results on your record forever because you plead guilty and didn't take your chance of proving your innocence by going to trial. For example if Larry Servedio did not want to accept his plea deal of two consecutive state prison terms of seven-and-a-half years by pleading guilty to two felony counts of second-degree kidnapping and go to trial he would face the possibility of losing the case and be sentenced to longer terms in prison. For the prosecution it saves them time but most important it helps the judges not overcrowd prisons by sentencing criminals to short terms which usually keeps them within their county lines.
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
Legally, there is no valid answer to that question, a fact, which is demonstrated by the following quote from Bordenkircher. “[W]hatever might be the situation in an ideal world, the fact is that the guilty plea and the often concomitant plea bargain are important components of this country's criminal justice system.” In other words, the legal system depends on plea bargaining and plea bargaining depends on the ability of prosecutors to threaten defendants. Consequently, the Court’s reasoning is not based on a legal foundation, but a practical one. Regardless of how essential plea bargaining may be to the functioning of the judicial system, “implementation of a strategy calculated solely to deter the exercise of constitutional rights is not a constitutionally permissible exercise of discretion” There are many practices which would make the criminal justice system function more efficiently.
Manny and Bella started a business in Kent Street and named it Honest House Sales Australian Company, a name that was already registered by another company running a website and a retail outlet in Perth. They declined from registering the company and business name. As such, the couple has breached copyrights and intellectual property rights of another company. Therefore, the Australian securities and investment commission, ASIC has a right to sue them to relinquish use of the business name as well as register their business with the ASIC in the right manner. Moreover, the business owners in Perth may also sue Manny and Bella for infringement of intellectual property.
For the defendant, the most significant benefit to plea bargaining is to take away the uncertainty of a criminal trial and to avoid the maximum sentence. Society also benefits from plea bargaining since the agreements lessen court congestion and free up prosecutors to handle more cases. The Cons of Plea
Plea bargains are negotiations between the prosecutor and the criminal defendant. In this negotiation, the criminal defendant consents to pleading guilty. When the criminal defendant takes the guilty plea, he or she is able receive reductions in their charges or sentences. There are pros and cons of plea bargains, but these bargains can be doing more harm than good. Plea bargaining is a simple process but can have long term repercussions.
In the United States court system, many criminal cases are not resolved in a timely manner. One of the more common ways in which many cases are resolved quickly is through plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is defined as an agreement between defense attorneys and prosecutors. (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012) Alschuler (1979) describes plea bargaining as the self-conviction act of a defendant. Today, approximately ninety percent of defendants plead guilty because of plea bargaining.
A plethora of children in the United States is being tried as an adult consequently, 3000 children nationwide are sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Children under the age of eighteen should not be tried as an adult in the interest of the physical and mental well-being of the child. Many questions should be asked by the court before considering trying a child as an adult. What was the nature and nurture of the accused child? Was the child being abused?
US citizens are transferred to jails across the country over 10.5 million times annually. Mass incarnation is one of the many major issues in our criminal justice systems. There are currently more than 740,000 people being held in jails and prisons across the United States. That high number is triple what it was just 50 years ago. A big factor in that statistic is the fact that more than 65% of inmates are awaiting their court date to arrive.
For those in prison, those who snitch saying the defendant confessed, testifying can be a bargaining chip; the state will often reduce sentence time or
Sentencing Sentencing occurs after a defendant has been convicted of a crime. During the sentencing process, the court issues a punishment that involves a fine, imprisonment, capital punishment, or some other penalty. In some states, juries may be entitled to determine a sentence. However, sentencing in most states and federal courts are issued by a judge. To fully understand the sentencing phase of criminal court proceedings, it is important to examine how sentencing affects the state and federal prison systems, learn the meanings of determinate and indeterminate sentencing, and understand the impact Proposition 57 has had on sentencing in California.
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.
Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).
Although many people view kids as a symbol of innocence and purity, many of their actions signify otherwise. The age of 18, which by law states people as adults, is more like a guideline when it comes to everyday activities. When a heinous crime is committed by one of these underaged citizens, the same punishment should definitely be applied, taking into consideration the seriousness of the crime and the victim. Thompson states that kids should not be tried as adults because their brain is not developed as an adult’s brain is. That study does not specifically explain why juveniles act the way they do.
Batley (2005) stated that restorative justice is about restoring, healing and re- integrating victims, offenders, as well as the society and also preventing further harm. In this assignment, I will be discussing approaches to restorative justice and illustrating their advantages and disadvantages to offending. I will also provide the applications of these five approaches of restorative justice which are retributive approach, utilitarian deterrence approach, rehabilitation approach, restitution approach and restorative approach in the given case study. I will then explain my preferred approach to justice through identifying a personal belief or value that underpins my choice.
