Exploring Bail Reform and Plea Bargaining in Criminal Justice
School
iSchool High @ University Park**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
HIST 111
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 10, 2024
Pages
4
Uploaded by ChefTurtlePerson4870
1301 Chapter 8 SFTInstructions: Each answer needs to be AT LEAST one paragraph and show real thought about each topic. Answers that do not meet this requirement will not receivefull marks. Use of AI generated answers will result in a grade of a 60 or lower.___________________________________________________________________________________________________1.Watch Robin’s TEDTalk on bail reform here: What if we ended the injustice of bail? | Robin Steinberg - YouTube What are the main arguments presented in the video for ending the current bail system, and how do these arguments address issues of fairness and inequality in the criminal justice system? What do you think about her ideas?In her TEDTalk, Robin Steinberg argues for ending the current bail system, emphasizing that it unjustly jails over 450,000 individuals in the U.S. each night solely due to their inability to pay bail, often amounts as low as $500. This system unfairly affects low-income individuals and racial minorities, leading to significant social and economic consequences, like job loss. Steinberg shows "The Bail Project," a bail fund that aims to stop mass incarceration and promote pretrial justice based on risk rather than wealth. Her argumentshighlight the unfairness in the criminal justice system, advocating for a fairer approach thattreats individuals as innocent until proven guilty, rather than punishing them based on their financial status. Personally, I find her ideas creative since she has found a solution for a big problem. Although it may not be the right solution its better than we already have at the moment.2.Plea Bargaining in America: An Overview & Conversation [POLICYbrief] - YouTubeWatch the video about plea bargains and consider what you have learned about our plea bargaining system. Imagine you are charged with burglary after being found near a store that was broken into, and some stolen items were in your vicinity. Although you maintain your innocence, the prosecution claims they have enough evidence to convict you. If convicted, you face 10 years in prison. However, the prosecutor offers you a plea deal: plead guilty to a misdemeanor for trespassing, and you will receive probation with no jail time.
What would you decide? Why? Consider the risks and implications of both choices.Personally, I would decide to take the plead deal. This is a very uncommon scenario because they are basically letting me off scott free. It’s a good deal and if they do have a lot of evidence implicating me then I’m taking the deal. If they don’t, I would probably fight butdepending on my lawyer and my time I would probably take the deal.3.As we have seen in previous chapters, issues concerning race and criminal justice have been at the forefront of public attention and controversy in the twenty-first century. There are questions about whether we can develop methods to select jurors to better ensure procedures do not cause underrepresentation from various demographic groups. In addition, there are concerns that racial biases may affect decision-making during jury deliberations. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed these issues in 2016 and 2017. In Foster v. Chatman (2016), the Court examined the death-penalty murder conviction and sentence of an African American man. State law granted the prosecution the authority to remove 10 potential jurors through discretionary challenges, so long as the removal decisions were not based on the jurors’ race or sex. During the appeal process, the defendant’s lawyer obtained prosecutors’ notes and records that presented many notations and comments indicating prosecutors’ determination to exclude African Americans from the jury. The prosecution ultimately removed all four African Americans from the jury pool. When asked by the trial judge to give non-racial reasons for the exclusion of the African Americans fromthe jury pool, the prosecutors’ answers were not consistent with the criteria applied to white jurors. For example, a prosecutor said one reason for the exclusion of an African American was the fact that she was divorced. Yet the prosecutor raised no such objection toseveral divorced whites who were placed on the jury. With respect to another African American excluded from the jury pool, the prosecutor said the juror’s son was the same ageas the defendant and therefore would make the juror too sympathetic to the defendant. Yet the prosecutor raised no such objection to two white jurors who had sons within a year or two of the defendant’s age. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 1 that the prosecution had violated rules against engaging in racial discrimination in jury selection. The case raised concerns about the risk that prosecutors may engage in discriminatory behavior in jury selection, yet avoid accountability when they keep no notes and records in the files that provide evidence of their biased behavior. In 2017, the Supreme Court examined an appeal from a sexual assault case against a Mexican-American man who allegedly groped two girls. After he was convicted at trial, two jurors immediately told the defense attorney that another juror had made anti-Latino comments during jury deliberations, including the
statement that "I think he did it because he is Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want." The allegedly biased juror also made other statements based on stereotypes, such as asserting that 90 percent of Mexican-American men are aggressive with women. Normally, American courts refuse to examine what occurred during jury deliberations. In theory, the other jurors will counteract any biases by individual jurors. Yet there is no escaping the possibility that the individual juror making biased statements is influenced by a set of unfair beliefs that may prevent fair and careful consideration of evidence. In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (2017), by a 5-to-3 vote, the Court overturned the conviction based on the racial bias expressed by the juror during jury deliberations. The justices in the majority emphasized that: The Nation must continue to make strides to overcome race-based discrimination. The progress that has already been made underlies the Court’s insistence that blatant racial prejudice is antithetical to the functioning of the jury system and must be confronted in egregious cases like this one. By contrast, the three dissenting justices argued for maintaining judges’ traditional deference to jury decisions by avoiding any examination or reconsideration of what the jurors discussed or decided. The dissentersalso expressed concern that the decision would encourage defense attorneys and defendants’ family members to pester jurors after trials to try to find out the details of discussions in the jury room. They also feared that the decision would encourage an increase in appeals challenging whether juries’ discussions and deliberations were proper. Issues similar to those in the foregoing cases emerge periodically when information is revealed that might normally remain secret. For example, in 2016, a jury in Cincinnati was unable to reach a verdict in the case of Ray Tensing, a white police officer who shot and killed unarmed African American motorist Sam DuBose during a traffic stop in 2015. When DuBose was asked to provide his driver’s license, he put the car into drive and began to move the vehicle forward, apparently to avoid discovery of the fact that his license had been suspended and he had marijuana in his car. Tensing had reached into the vehicle as if to grab the steering wheel, but then pulled his gun and shot DuBose in the head. Tensing claimed that he feared for his life because his arm was caught in the car as it moved forward. However, his police body camera appeared to show that his arm was not caught and he was free from the car when he fired the fatal shot. Prosecutors charged Tensing with murder. After the first jury, composed of ten whites and two African Americans was unable to reach a verdict, therefore resulting in a mistrial, the judge released juror questionnaires that had been filled out by the jurors, with their individual identities hiddenwhen the forms were made public. Several of the comments made by the jurors prior to trial raised concerns about bias, including racial bias: Four jurors checked a box to indicate that they agreed that some racial and ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others. One said "strongly agree." One juror indicated that he was the nephew of a police officer and said police are the"good guys" who "should be given the benefit of the doubt."
One juror responded to a question about the Black Lives Matter movement by saying that police shootings result from "victims being wrong to begin with." One juror described a "frightening" experience with another race by saying he was assaulted by African Americans while in high school. Critics complained that these people should not have been part of a jury in a case with racial overtones and police involvement because they provided indications prior to trial that they had biases either against African Americans or in favor of the police. What is most important for the justice system—respecting the confidentiality of jurors’ discussion in the jury room or making an effort to eliminate racial and ethnic biases in the justice system? In some respects, this question is at the heart of the disagreement among the Supreme Court’s justices. Discuss both sides arguments. Which side has the stronger argument? Write a memo explaining the reasons for your conclusions.This memo studies the tension between maintaining the confidentiality of jury deliberations and removing racial and ethnic biases in the justice system, as shown in the U.S. Supreme Court cases Foster v. Chatman(2016) and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado(2017). Supporters of jury confidentiality argue that it protects the integrity and finality of jury decisions, prevents interference from defense attorneys that try to seek post-trial information, and avoids an increase in appeals challenging jury deliberations. However, theopposition emphasizes that racial bias undermines fair trials and public trust, as seen in Foster, where African Americans were excluded from the jury based on race, and Pena-Rodriguez, where anti-Latino statements from a juror demonstrated how prejudice can make deliberations unfair. While the opposing justices in Pena-Rodriguezwarned that examining deliberations would disrupt the jury process, the majority stressed that addressing blatant racial prejudice is essential to preserve the justice system's legitimacy. The stronger argument is in eliminating racial bias, as that ensures fairness and upholds the integrity of the legal process, even if it requires more challenging traditional norms of jury confidentiality.