Plea Bargaining Essay Research Paper The most

Plea Bargaining Essay, Research Paper

The most common arguement offered on behalf of plea bargaining is that it

lifts theburden of heavy caseloads from the shoulders of the courts. By ensuring that

most criminaldefendants enter a plea of guilty, plea bargaining eliminates the need for

time-consuming trialprocedures. Harold J. Rothwax, a Manhattan judge said, "We go to plea

bargaining out ofnecessity, not out of desire. It is inescapable." Criminal defendants

charged with felonies couldcompletely overcome the court system if they coordinated their efforts.

"If even half of the 90%of the defendants who now plead guilty should request trial, the judicial

system would breakdown from overload", said B.J. George Jr. Although society would

certainly respond to asubstantially overburdened court system by allotting more resources to it,

such s responce wouldlikely be slow.Proponents of plea bargaining argue that it allows the accused to have a

greater degree ofautonomy over the results of their cases. Unlike a system without a plea

bargaining, in which adefendant either pleads guilty without meeting with the prosecutor or pleads

innocent and thengoes through the trial process, plea bargaining allows the defendant the

intermediate option ofpleading guilty to avoid a harsh penalty. This arguement sees plea bargaining

as an extra checkin the criminal justice system to ensure that the autonomy and liberty of the

accused is respectedby the state. Plea bargaining also protects innocent defendants from the

possibility of harshsanctions. Unfortunate innocent defendants who realize that the case them

against them is toooverwhelming to gain leniency from the judge or to win acquittal from a jury

may view pleabargaining as an attractive alternative to trial. Without plea bargaining,

many of these innocentdefendants would be found guilty and sentenced. Of course, plea bargaining

does not violateone’s right to trial, as defendants always have the option to plead not

guilty and be tried by ajury. Proponents of plea bargaining point out that prosecutors do not force

anyone to pleabargain.Although plea bargaining is not perfect, the pressures placed on the court

system make itthe best way to promote justice. Critics of the practice tend to focus only

on the relativelyinsignificant number of cases where plea bargaining results in injustice.

When evaluating theeffectiveness of plea bargaining in promoting justice, it is important to

focus equally on itsstrengths. In most cases, plea bargaining is a fair and efficient way to deal

with cases. Mostguilty defendants will be convicted with or without plea bargaining, and most

innocentdefendants will be acquitted. Therefore, plea bargaining is usually an

acceptable and moreefficient alternative to trial. One important positive effect that plea

bargaining has on thecriminal justice system is that it preserves the seriousness of the innocent

plea. With pleabargaining, innocent pleas are few and far between, making the judge and

attorneys moreattentive during trials. Without plea bargaining, guilty defendants have less

of an incentive toplead guilty and more of an incentive to go to trial. With more trials to

attend to, and with mostdefendants being ultimately found guilty, the cases of the few innocent

defendants who needtrials the most might not recieve the proper amount of attention from judges

or attorneys.The efficiency excuse can only be used by the most overburdened courts.

Prosecutorsworking in rural areas with relatively low caseloads use plea bargaining just

as prosecutors whowork in major cities. Additionally, plea bargaining was used decades ago,

when courts in generalwere not as overburdened as they are today. These observations, according to

opponents of pleabargaining, suggest that necessity is not the only explanation for the

widespread use of thepractice. An alternative explanation not cited by plea bargaining proponents

is that the practicelifts burdens not only from the courts, but from the shoulders of the judges

and attorneys whowork within them. Attorneys and judges realize that the trials require

significantly more personaleffort and time than plea bargaining. When the court has heard all of the

cases on the docket, thejudge and public attorneys are free to spend their time outside of the

courtroom. Thus, theincentives for public attorneys and judges to use plea bargaining are often

personal. In light ofthis observation, the often cited efficiency excuse does not seem valid. As

one scholar wiselyobserved, "regardless of the caseload, there will always be too many

cases for many of theparticipants in the system, since most of them have a strong interest in

being some place otherthan court.Plea bargaining presents a substantial threat to the liberties of the

accused, especiallythose who are innocent. Prosecutors bargain with the harshest sentence that

they think thedefendant will accept in exchange for a guilty ple

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать