In today's era, when a criminal is charged for various crimes their given a shortcut to justice by simply accepting a plea deal. In this case, Larry Servedio faces multiple felonies: first-degree kidnapping, first-degree rape, third-degree rape, third-degree criminal sexual act, third-degree criminal mischief, criminal impersonation, second-degree grand larceny, and second-degree strangulation. Servedio was also indicted for several misdemeanor charges: first-degree harassment, second-degree aggravated harassment, second-degree menacing and torturing and injuring an animal. If Mr. Servedio goes to trial and is able to prove his innocence of the charges pressed against him, then he is a free man and all charges get dropped. Yet, if Mr. Servedio
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
However, Ruiz did not accept the “ fast track” agreement because she believed the agreement was unconstitional to her rights. Ruiz was able to get her “ fair trial” under the Sixth Amendent. During, the trial Ruiz pled guilty to the charges of marijuana and requested the “ fast track” plea agreement that was offer to her. Unfortuanly, Ruiz was denied the “ fast track” plea agreement due to Ruiz’s failure to signing the plea agreement. Ultimately, Ruiz was sentenced to eighteen months in
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.
Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.
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 three basic types of plea bargains: the first one is where the defendant may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge; the second is one is, at the request of the prosecutor, a defendant that pleads guilty may receive a lighter sentence than they would if not requested; and thirdly a defendant may plead guilty to one charge in exchange for the prosecutor’s willingness to drop other charges that could be brought. There are three factors that will cause a prosecutor to decide on a plea bargain, they are the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and how strong of a case the prosecutor has. Plea bargains serve interest to just about everyone that is involved. Plea bargaining serves the interest of all court’s
The negative aspects that can be thought of is first it seems that the defendant is being let go by committing his real crime. Secondly, a judge can argue that plea bargaining led to a poor police investigation. Thirdly, an individual can feel as if their constitutional rights have been violated by their right to a trial by jury being taken away. Finally instead of pursuing justice the parties rely on making deals instead of getting justice (Info,
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.
Since the founding of our judicial system there have always been individuals claiming innocence to a crime that they have been found guilty of, traditionally, after their sentencing no matter how innocent they may or may not be would have to serve, live and possibly die by the decision of their peers. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck alongside Peter J. Neufeld faces this issue by challenging the sentencing of convicted individuals who claim their innocence and have factual ground to stand upon. The Innocence Project uses the recent advances in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to prove their client’s innocence by using methods that were not available, too primitive or not provided to their clients during their investigation,
Plea barging is an important part of the admistration of justice because it saves time and makes the process quicker it also gives the chance for the defendant to plea guilty or not guilty. I would improve plea bargain by being fair with the people serving justice, no person should go thru what the two women went thru in the video. Both women had an attorney who they trusted the attorney only spoke to the judge and convinced both women to plea guilty. I believe attorneys should be fair with their clients they should be treated equally not by their income. The negative consequence of plea barging is many innocent people pea guilty fear of serving jail time and the cost of probation.
The steps in entering a guilty plea is extremely important and the offender must understand the consequences of pleading guilty to a case. The Unites States Supreme Court has held that a guilty plea constitutes a conviction. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require judges to inform the defendant of the various rights he or she is surrendering by pleading guilty. Additionally, entering a guilty plea must be voluntary and not forced or result of any promises. There must be a factual basis to make sufficient inquiry for the plea.
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.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
