Homeworks academic service


Discuss the controversial practice of plea bargaining in the american judicial system

Early history[ edit ] Plea bargaining has existed for centuries; in older legal systems convictions were at times routinely procured by confessionand laws existed covering such criminal confessions, although by the 18th century inducements had been forbidden in English Law to prevent miscarriage of justice. In a number of urban districts the enforcement agencies maintain that the only practicable way of meeting this situation with the existing machinery of the federal courts.

Supreme Court warned, in the same decision, that this was conditional only and required appropriate safeguards and usage—namely that plea incentives so large or coercive as to overrule defendants' abilities to act freely, or used in a manner giving rise to a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty, might be prohibited or lead to concerns over constitutionality. Jackson that a law was unconstitutional that had the effect of imposing undue fear in a defendant in that case, the fear of death to the point it discouraged the exercise of a constitutional right the 6th Amendment covering the right to a jury trialand also forced the defendant to act as an unwilling witness against himself in violation of the 5th amendment.

Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. Plea bargaining "is no more foolproof than full trials to the court or to the jury.

Accordingly, we take great precautions against unsound results. But our view is to the contrary and is based on our expectations that courts will satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel and that there is nothing to question the accuracy and reliability of the defendants' admissions".

The ruling in Brady does not discuss "situation[s] where the prosecutor or judge, or both, deliberately employ their charging and sentencing powers to induce a particular defendant to tender a plea of guilty. In Brady's case there is no claim that the prosecutor threatened prosecution on a charge not justified by the evidence or that the trial judge threatened Brady with a harsher sentence if convicted after trial in order to induce him to plead guilty.

Report Abuse

New York added that when plea bargains are broken, remedies exist; and it has been argued that given the prevalence of plea agreements, the most important rights of the accused may be found in the law of contracts rather than the law of trial procedure.

A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who accept responsibility by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11 c 1 B agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement.

An 11 c 1 C agreement does bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Coercive effect[ edit ] Plea bargaining is also criticized, particularly outside the United States, on the grounds that its close relationship with rewards, threats and coercion potentially endangers the correct legal outcome.

As a result, people who might have been acquitted because of lack of evidence, but also who are in fact truly innocent, will often plead guilty to the charge. In a word, fear.

What are some of the pros of plea bargaining?

And the more numerous and serious the charges, studies have shown, the greater the fear. That explains why prosecutors sometimes seem to file every charge imaginable against defendants. The theoretical work based on the prisoner's dilemma is one reason why, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the prisoner's dilemma scenario applies: Arguably, the worst case is when only one party is guilty—here, the innocent one is unlikely to confess, while the guilty one is likely to confess and testify against the innocent.

Judicial efficiency[ edit ] The United States Supreme Court has recognized plea bargaining as both an essential and desirable part of the criminal justice system. Similar consequences were observed in New OrleansVentura County, Californiaand in Oakland County, Michiganwhere plea bargaining has been terminated.

Most importantly, justice was served—and criminals began to realize that they could not continue their arrogant manipulation of a paper-tiger court system.

  • Another flaw is the fact that the "small fish" may lie in order to save themselves;
  • There are documented cases in which these criminals have fabricated testimony that leads to the conviction of the "bigger fish" that prosecutors want;
  • Also, plea bargains may reduce overcrowding in prisons and make space available for truly heinous criminals.

Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. Theoretically, the shadow-of-trial should work even better in criminal cases than in civil cases, because civil judgments are discretionary, while criminal judgments are often regulated by mandatory minima and sentencing guidelinesmaking sentences more predictable.

A counter-argument is that criminal sentencing laws are "lumpy", in that the sentencing ranges are not as precise as the dollars-and-cents calibration that can be achieved in civil case settlements.

Related Questions

Furthermore, because some defendants facing small amounts of prison time are jailed pending trial, they may find it in their interests to plead guilty so as to be sentenced to time servedor in any event to end up serving less time than they would serve waiting for trial. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to 'Prove it! This position has been rejected by the nation's courts.