The Injustices Presented by Plea Bargaining to Community
The Injustices Presented by Plea Bargaining to Community
Introduction
Plea bargain in alternative terms is called plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea. It is granted by the state (prosecutors) to a defendant/s. The defendant gets a chance to plead his/her guilt to charge/s which may be less severe than those s/he is charged with in the criminal offense in view. In an alternative manner, plea bargains may offer a defendant/s a chance to plead his/her guilt to original charges, but s/he is offered a light sentence that is lesser in gravity to the maximum recommendable sentence for that particular criminal offense. The application of this concept within the justice systems grants defendants opportunities for avoidance of the risk of conviction in trials that may involve conviction for serious original offenses. For example defendants under felonious charges of theft could be granted an opportunity to plead their guilt to charges of theft crime under misdemeanors. The later charges would have attracted a state correctional facility incarceration, but the former lesser charges after agreeing to a plea bargain may not elicit a state correctional facility term.
A similar case occurs in motor vehicle accidents where there might be a possibility of civil liability, in such instances the charged individual may opt to accept his/her guilt but on grounds of maintaining civil reservation. In actual sense, this is similar to a guilty plea, but one having no acceptance of any civil liability. Plea bargains result in to situations characterized by dilemmas (lawyers of the defendant are forced to decide whether to assist the client in obtaining a better deal or to preserve positive relations with the involved prosecutors, as a way to help their defendants of the coming times. Additionally, the defendants are at times caught in a situational dilemma when they have to decide, either to plead guilty to lesser charges and get a lesser sentence, or to deny the charges and face the possibility of a bigger sentence based on original charges (keeping in mind that at times these defendants may be innocent in the actual sense).
There are different classifications of plea bargains, the first is known as sentence bargain, in this type of plea the defendant pleads his/her guilt knowing prior to the sentence the kind of sentencing to be given (in virtually all cases it is a preferred sentence to the original charges) which involves pleading guilty but with prior knowledge of the kind of sentence to be offered. There is also in charge bargain- in this case the accused pleads guilt to less serious charges in comparison to the originally alleged charges. Other forms of plea bargains include in fact bargains and in count bargains. In in fact bargains the accused accepts charges labeled against him/her, but with knowledge that the prosecutor has agreed to stipulate factual information that will influence the sentencing favorably for the defendant. The later; in count a bargain allows the accused to plead his/her guilt to a sub-set of alleged charges, whilst others are excluded. The form of coercion, fear and intimidation-like tactics applied in the implementation of plea bargains breeds injustice within the justice system.
Thesis statement
To state that plea bargains lead to injustice can be termed as an understatement. In actual sense the concept enshrined in the term “plea bargaining” can be said to be diametrically against the justice concept, though not in the literal sense, but actually in the action of implementing the ideology. The plea bargains conflict the United States’ provisions of due process in the judicial system. This is because plea bargains usurp the amendments that contain the due process within the constitution as well as the rights that these amendments offer to the people of America. A part from conflicting the constitution; plea bargaining at times leads to incarceration of innocent Americans as well as early release of criminals who deserve to serve longer sentences. As a result, remedial measures have to be undertaken in order to correct the injustices created by this provision.
The application of plea bargaining concept and the resultant injustices
In order to comprehensively understand and perform an analysis of the effects of plea bargaining on the service of justice in the United States of America, people have to first understand the meaning of the term plea bargaining. In basic terms, a plea bargain is known as a negotiable settlement reached between the accused (individual defendant) and the state alternatively referred to as “the people”. Plea bargains are issued by the state prosecutors to defendants that have received ‘charging instrument/s from the state for allegations of committing certain crimes. As from the onset of the reception of the charging instrument/s the defendant finds him/herself at an adversarial status in relation to the people because of the alleged charges (Stuntz & Scott, 1991). At such instances, lines are drawn between the state and the defendant; and as from that point the state’s prosecutor’s main objective becomes the acquisition of a conviction for the charges at all costs.
The unfortunate thing is that more often than not this action is taken without regard for the accused person’s due process rights that are enshrined within the constitution’s fifth and fourteenth amendments (Lynch, 2003). Plea bargaining is used as an expeditious convenience by the state rather than a tool to aid in the seeking of justice. This is especially so, because America’s judicial systems run their activities on the basis of the model of crime control rather than the model of due process. This presents a conflicting scenario, whereby some elements of the justice systems work against the delivery of justice within the justice system because of opposing interests. The plea bargain provides state prosecutors and/or lawyers that represent the state to run a process similar to an assembly line, whereby they perpetually deposit-at times innocent-citizens in the system of criminal justice.
A study of the crime control model of due process alongside the widely applied model of crime control indicates that the due process attempts to maintain the innocence presumption through the function of crime control till the defendant is proven to be guilty. On the other hand, the model of crime control seemingly attempts to minimize defense lawyer challenges and ensure that the person accused is presumed guilty as alleged. The crime control model based on due process tries to make sure that the people to be charged are offered adequate allowance to establish their own defense. As a result, the model puts justice on the fore front of its priorities. On the contrary, the model of crime control views the repression of crime as the being of greater importance than the dispensation of justice. This is all done without regard for the United States’ citizen’s liberty that is granted to all through the constitutional rights.
Though not born through the recent policies on crime control within the system of criminal justice, plea bargains have grown in popularity in the justice system, more so amongst the prosecutors. This has been necessitated by the rise in crimes within the period of the last decade coupled by the outcries from the public about the rise in crimes. As a remedial measure the American courts have emphasized application of the model of crime control which places greater emphasis on increasing the apprehending and subsequent conviction of alleged criminals with a focus on finality and speed. This is a well intended plan that was meant to repress crime. In effecting the policies dictates state prosecutors have chosen to use plea bargains as an efficient way to acquire pleas of guilt and conviction irrespective of the innocence or guiltiness of the defendants (Stratton & Roberts, 2000).
Defense lawyers working to defend the constitution and defendants more often than not engage in the practice. These lawyers at times also willingly permit their clients to be coerced in to submission so as to dispose criminal cases in a convenient manner through plea bargains. This act is more often than not done without regard for the innocence or guilt of the defendant. Pleas of guilt obtained via plea bargains save the state’s money and time by quickly disposing issues, and therefore efficiently fueling the crime control machinery. The defense lawyer is contended for disposing the case with great effort, therefore likening the system to a ‘conveyor belt’. In cases involving defendants that cannot afford legal counsel, the defense lawyer and prosecutor as well as the judge are all appointed and employed by the government. This simply implies that they may have little if any regards interests or concerns about the defendant, and as such they are likely to opt for a quick plea bargain to dispose the work load of cases. At times the justice system and operations in prosecution take nefarious steps in an effort to obtain a plea. Take for example a man is apprehended for a crime, but he cannot acquire an attorney because he cannot meet the expenses. As a result, a public defense lawyer (state employed lawyer) is appointed to represent him. Thereafter, he posts his bail and at his arraignment before the court’s judge the defense lawyer tells him that the state prosecutor (also state employed) has decided to offer the defendant a deal that would resolve the issue.
The deal requires that the man pleads guilty to the alleged charges so as to get a reasonable probationary period with a guaranteed no jail term agreement. As the man hesitates to concede to the deal, he considers the possibilities of a waiver of his human and civil rights, costs of supervision and fines that may result if he may disagree. Later, the appointed defense lawyer advises the man to accept the plea because the judge had stated that if the man does not accept the plea, and he loses the case he will get maximum sentencing and full penalties indicated for the offense by the state. On advice of the defense lawyer, coupled with the fear of getting a full sentence on original charges the man is coerced into accepting to plead guilty to the charges against him. This is a typical scenario of common happenings in court rooms and justice systems across America.
Considering the above scenario some may argue that this process was reasonable because the man was maybe guilty, and as such it is a good deal because he has received a less severe sentence. Yet again, the question lingers; what if he was not guilty? (Probably he fell for the coercion because he could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that indeed he was innocent-a requirement of the justice system for innocence to be upheld till guilt is proven) (Killias & Huff, 2008). Others may also argue that the defense attorney was acting out of the best interests for his client as a professional obligation. This may have resulted from the lawyer’s evaluation that may have established that the charges were strong and highly likely to produce an unfavorable conviction for his client compared to the plea bargain. However, this may not be true because there is a possibility that substantial evidence would have also lacked, and therefore resulting in an acquittal (an advantage touted by the justice system’s plea bargain champions because it ensures criminals are convicted-however, they fail to note the inherent possibility within plea bargains for convicting innocent people) (Fisher, 2004). This may have worked well if indeed the defendant was guilty, but it could cause more far reaching injustice by convicting innocent people.
Measures to curb injustices propagated by plea bargains
This review clearly indicates that in some instances the application of plea bargains denies some citizens their constitutional rights. Despite the fact that the model implemented in this case has been seen to reduce crime, there are cases of injustices, erroneous convictions and constitutional rights violations, especially on the fifth and the fourteenth amendments on the issue of due process (Fine, 1987). It would be better for the state to invest more time and money to resolve cases of crime under the guidelines of the due process rather than create loopholes for injustices to invade the judicial system.
The conviction of innocent citizens as well as the granting of shorter and less severe sentences to actual criminals on the grounds of this provision is both unconstitutional and unjust to the defendants who are convicted erroneously as well as families of victims (Rein, 2007). The families of victims that have suffered in the hands of criminals would like to see the accused face the maximum possible sentence rather than be punished leniently. Apart from providing finances and probably more time by opening more courts and employing more attorneys and prosecutors in order to speed up the trials, the state should abolish plea bargains and instead run the trials on a due process basis. The state of Alaska has set an exemplary standard by abolishing plea bargains; however the plea bargains are still under use in other numerous American states.
Conclusion
It is often argued that plea bargains are agreements that offer the engaging parties chances that if taken may leave all the involved parties contended. However, the charged have many substantive as well as procedural and constitutional rights that they lose when the accept plea bargains. This makes the defendants to surrender most of their rights to the prosecution for an unfair exchange necessitated by fear. The application of plea bargains touted as a control for criminal acquittals that lead to crime increase; however this is only a single advantage that causes many other disadvantages to society such as erroneous convictions and reduction of sentences (which may also serve to increase crime). Therefore, the government should strive to put more resources into ensuring that due process is adhered to so that no citizens’ rights are violated. Measures to implement this should include dedication of more funds and time to trials as well as the abolishment of plea bargains in all American courts. This will ensure the nation of America upholds justice and constitutionally provided rights.
References
Fine, A. R. (1987). Escape of the Guilty. New York, NY: Dodd Mead Publishers.
Fisher, G. (2004). Plea Bargaining’s Triumph: A history of plea bargaining in America. StanfordUniversity Press.
Killias, M. and Huff, R. C. (2008). Wrongful Conviction: International perspectives on miscarriages of justice. TempleUniversity Press.
Lynch, T. (2003). The Case against Plea Bargaining. Retrieved on 18th August, 2010 from www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf.
Rein, D. (2007). Who Really Benefits from a Plea Bargain? Retrieved from, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/126032/who_really_benefits_from_a_plea_bargain_pg2.htm?cat=17, on 18th August, 2010.
Stratton, M. L. and Roberts, C. P. (2000). The Tyranny of Good Intentions. New York, NY: Prima Publishers.
Stuntz, J.W., and Scott, E. R. (1991). Plea Bargaining as Contract. Law and Economics Program, University of Toronto.
Yant, M. (1991). Presumed Guilty: When innocent people are wrongly convicted. Buffalo, New York, NY: Prometheus Books, Pg 172.
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
