Plea Bargaining
Introduction
Plea bargaining alternatively known as copping a plea, plea deal or plea agreement is an offer by a prosecutor to a defendant, in which s/he is given a chance to plead guilty to a charge which is less than that stipulated by the law for that particular criminal case. Alternatively, plea bargaining may occur when a defendant is offered the opportunity to plead guilty to the original charge, but with an offer of getting a lighter sentence which may not be the maximum reccomended sentence for the criminal case.
The plea bargain offers the defendant a chance to avoid the risk of being convicted at trial for the serious original charge. For example a person with charges of felony theft (conviction would offer state prison incarceration) may be offered a chance to plead to a lesser charge of misdemeanor theft crime (misdemeanor theft may carry no jail term). Similarly, in automobile collisions with potential civil liability, the defendant may accept to plead guilty but with civil reservation. Basically, this is the same as pleading guilty without the admission of civil liability. Plea bargaining causes a dilemma, in that defense lawyers have to choose between helping their clients obtain a good deal or keep the good relations with the prosecutors, in order to help the clients of the future.
The types of plea bargaining available include in sentence bargaining, which involves pleading guilty but with prior knowledge of the kind of sentence to be offered. In charge bargaining-the defendant pleads to a crime that is less serious compared to the committed crime. In count bargaining is another form of plea bargaining in which defendants plead to a subset of the original multiple crime charges. In fact bargaining allows defendants to plead after an agreement with the prosecutor in which the prosecutor stipulates to facts which are bound to influence how the sentence will be set. More often than not, the defendant always benefits from this kind of arrangement.
Plea bargaining has received a lot of criticism because the use of coercion, rewards and threats associated with it greatly influences proper legal outcomes. Plea bargaining using coercive tactics has particularly constitutionally wrong because it infringes on the rights of the defendant enshrined in article eight within the European Convention on Human Rights. The fear associated with serious charges may at times compel the defendant and defense attorneys to quickly fall for an offer of plea bargaining. This at times leads to the sentencing of people that may have received acquittals out of the absence of substantial evidence or those that may actually be innocent t (Yant, 1991). At times such people plead to charges due to plea bargaining offers from the prosecutors. It has also been observed that it is highly likely that an individual will plead guilty on offer of a plea bargaining if the charges against him/her are serious and numerous. This may be the reason why prosecutors seek to file as many imaginable charges as possible of defendants.
Another reason for critique concerns the prisoner’s dilemma; theoretically its an interest that pertains to both the accused suspects to testify and confess against each other without regard to the innocence of the accused. Arguably, a challenge occurs when one person is guilty. In such a scenario the innocent person is unlikely to confess whilst the guilty party is likely to do so and testify against the person that is innocent (Yant, 1991).
People have often defended Plea bargaining on the grounds that it is an exchange that offers both parties chances that if taken leave both of the parties contended The charged people have numerous substantive and procedural rights , but when they plead to charges on the basis of a bargain, the defendants sell their rights to the prosecution thus getting concessions they value more than the surrendered rights. Another argument for plea bargaining asserts that plea bargaining is a benefit to society because it ensures that guilty people receive no acquittals. However, I would like to disagree with this assertion because it is more likely that plea bargaining has led to the sentencing of many innocent individuals that agree to plead guilty on grounds of sheer fear of a bigger sentencing on charges of serious crimes.
The benefits from plea bargaining are few-namely the fact that it ensures criminals are behind bars, especially for those whom there is no sufficient evidence for sentencing them. It also ensures that people testify against other people to be prosecuted or arrested. Plea bargaining also offers a chance to criminal so that they may cooperate with policemen in offering essential information such as location of bodies in murder cases or vital evidence( Rein, 2007). Looking at plea bargaining from the eyes of the victims and families of victims in crime may clearly depict the reason why plea bargaining is not a good option. Firstly, the desire if victims is to have the accused serve the just sentence deserved. However, plea bargaining offers criminal a chance to quickly get back to society (Rein, 2007). A part from offering lenient punishments to criminals plea bargaining at times may lead to the sentencing of innocent people as stated earlier. Conclusively, plea bargaining may have both advantages and disadvantages depending on what side you are and it may present a lose-lose or win-win scenario. However, its disadvantages seemingly outweigh its advantages.
References
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.html?cat=17 on 16th August, 2010.
Yant, M. (1991). Presumed Guilty: When innocent people are wrongly convicted. Pg 172
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
