Abstract Pleabargains are a form of negotiation used in many legal systems around the world. In general, a pleabargain is reached via an informal process of negotiation, in the course of which the prosecutor and the defense counsel reach an out-of-court settlement. Using pleabargaining has become an accepted practice in both Canada and North America, as well as in many other countries. However, just because it has become commonplace does not necessarily imply that it is right. This paper begins by describing the system of pleabargaining and then goes on to present arguments against such a system.
Abstract This paper argues that pleabargaining should be practiced in a court of law because they can give flexibility in certain cases that are not too severe. The author points out that the pleabargain can help prosecutors and defendants get more lenient sentences if the law offers too harsh a penalty for the crime. The paper stresses that the court system must be aware of not abusing the pleabargain because it should only apply to special cases, which do not entail civil and societal irresponsibility.
From the Paper "This political science analysis will seek to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the plea bargain. By understanding the court system of today, we can analyze how the plea bargain is an advantage in shortening trials and the legal complications in the justice system. Also, we can realize how the plea bargain is a disadvantage in that it gives shorter sentencing for serious crimes in the guilty verdict presented. In this manner, the plea bargain of the court system offers both advantages and disadvantages in the modern American court system. The advantages for the American court system to allow plea bargains for guilty verdicts help prevent congestion and lengthy trials. The judge can allow and regulate plea bargains, but only if both the prosecutor and the defense can arrange an agreement for sentencing."
Abstract This paper explains that pleabargain is primarily a negotiation between the defendant and his or her attorney on one side and the prosecutor on the other, in which the defendant agrees to plead "guilty" or "no contest" to a crime in return for benefits such as the reduction of the severity or dismissal of the charges. The author points out that pleabargaining has become so pervasive because it is an out of court settlement, which helps reduce the high volume of cases facing the judicial system, provides a win-win scenario for both the prosecutor and the defendant's attorney and obtains the defendant's willingness to testify for the prosecution in other associated cases. The paper relates that the negative side to plea-bargaining includes (1) overcharging the defendant, (2) forcing an innocent person to confess to a crime that he or she has never committed, (3) allowing confirmed convicts to get their punishment reduced or even get out of jail and (4) forfeiting an individual's Constitutional rights, which is a danger to the society as a whole.
Table of Contents
What is PleaBargaining?
Authorization and Procedure of PleaBargaining Rules Regarding the Breach of Plea Agreement
Why is PleaBargaining so Pervasive in our Society?
Benefits of PleaBargaining Disadvantages of PleaBargaining Conclusion
From the Paper "In most cases, judges do authorize a plea bargain if the defendant makes a knowing and voluntary waiver of his or her right to a trial, the defendant understands the charges, the defendant understands the maximum sentence he or she could receive after pleading guilty, and the defendant makes a voluntary confession, in court, to the alleged crime. Even if a defendant agrees to plead guilty, a judge may decline to accept the guilty plea and plea agreement if the charge or charges have no factual basis. It is also highlighted here that the judge does not play any part in the plea bargain discussions between the defendant's attorney and the prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecutors have discretion whether to offer a plea bargain or not. However, a prosecutor should not discriminate in making or accepting an offer of plea bargain based on an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or some other arbitrary classification."
Abstract This paper talks about the role pleabargains hold in the judicial system of the United States. The author gives reasons why pleabargaining is a necessary part of the United States' criminal justice system even though some may argue that the guilty benefit from pleabargaining and that the rights of the defendant are sacrificed by pleabargaining. The paper argues that without a pleabargaining system, the criminal justice system would simply break down due to the overcrowding conditions in jails and prisons. The paper briefly discusses some reasons defendants might agree to pleabargain and also analyzes how the rate of pleabargains can be decreased.
From the Paper "It appears that plea bargains will remain as an integral part of our justice system. Many courts have made major headway in reducing the complexity of civil cases. However, it is more difficult to simplify criminal procedures because defendants are protected in many ways by our Constitution. Court administrators live with the fear that their budgets will be cut and are realistic in their beliefs that their chances of getting more money are few."
Abstract This paper states that although some people are for pleabargaining, there are several who are against bargaining for justice. The paper then discusses the purposes that pleabargains provide and gives examples. Next, the paper describes the types of pleabargains and looks at both the advantages and disadvantages of pleabargaining. The paper concludes with the writer's opinion that pleabargains are a necessity in today's court system because there are so many people awaiting trials.
Outline:
Types of PleaBargains Pros and Cons
From the Paper "I think plea bargains are a necessity in today's court system because there are so many people awaiting trials. I am also a firm believer in convicting on a lesser charge if the evidence does not support the more serious crime that has been committed. Many times the prosecutors have evidence that is not admissible in court, but it proves that they defendant is in fact guilty of the crime. I also believe in plea bargaining in order to get evidence against a person who is committing a more serious crime. For example, plea bargaining with a drug dealer in order to get to the drug lords is acceptable in my opinion."
Tags: random, basis, a, lesser, charge, admissible
Abstract This paper addresses whether or not the practice of pleabargaining is ethical. The author is in favor of pleabargaining and believes it to be an ethical means of conviction. The paper includes a detailed explanation of what pleabargaining is and how the procedure works, as well as addressing problems that have occurred when pleabargaining is turned to for the wrong reasons. The conclusion states that, while certain changes could be made to ensure the ethical implementation of pleabargaining, it is nevertheless a necessary part of the justice system that, like all things, can be altered by human error.
Abstract This paper examines pleabargaining and what it means for the criminal justice system. The paper presents a research proposal that analyzes public opinion regarding pleabargaining. It hypothesizes that the public is not supportive of pleabargaining in cases of violent crimes and it suggests that public opinion has impacted the sentencing decisions of courts regardless of pleabargains.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Prior Studies
Variables for this Study
Scenarios of PleaBargaining Independent Variables
Control Variables
From the Paper "Julian V. Roberts' book, Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal Justice, reports on a series of surveys that examined public opinion on certain aspects of legal procedure and processes. In 1988, a survey was conducted of public opinion in Canada, and found that four out of five people surveyed disapproved of plea bargaining (Roberts, Julian V, 1997, p. 210). "There was little demographic variance in attitudes. Moreover, the link between attitudes and plea bargaining and views of sentencing were clear. People who regarded plea bargaining as unacceptable also thought that sentences were not harsh enough (Roberts, Julian V, 1997, p. 210)." The same survey yielded information to show that the prosecutors' reasons underlying the plea bargaining impacted public opinion. "Finally, the presence of information about a plea bargain in scenarios had the impact of changing public evaluations of criminal justice professionals (Roberts, Julian V, 1997, p. 210)." It did not change their overall opinion of the use of plea bargaining. "For example, if subjects read about a case in which a plea bargain had taken place, they had more negative views of the prosecutor (Roberts, Julian V, 1997, p. 210).""
Abstract The paper presents the hypothesis that the public is not supportive of pleabargaining in cases of violent crimes. The paper looks at previous studies, with a focus on Sergio Herzog's study "The Relationship Between Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness and Support for Plea-Bargaining in Israel: A Factorial-Survey Approach". The paper proposes a study where eight pleabargaining scenarios will be presented to individuals. The paper hopes to show that public opinion has impacted the sentencing decisions of courts regardless of pleabargains.
Outline:
Introduction
Prior Studies
Variables for this Study
Scenarios of PleaBargaining Independent Variables
From the Paper "Plea bargaining is not a legal punishment assigned to criminal behavior, but is a tool that has been utilized by an overburdened legal system, which is poorly equipped to otherwise deal with the enormous numbers of criminal cases that filter through the system. Without plea bargaining, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys and finders of fact would be required to meet the legal definitions of the rules of evidence, which could involve lengthy processes and costs associated with bringing those cases to trial and through the court system."
Abstract This paper looks at the concept of the pleabargain, a method of agreement made between the prosecutor and the defense by way of which a defendant would be in a position to plead guilty to charges of criminality. It discusses how there are two methods of pleabargaining, namely, charge bargain and sentence bargain. It debates its pros and cons and looks at how opponents of pleabargaining argue, on moral terms, that a trial would prevent the inherent dangers being faced by a defendant. It also show how supporters of pleabargaining want the speedy disposal of cases for the economic benefits of preventing costs.
From the Paper "The most common advantage of entering into an agreement of plea-bargaining is that it enables the defendant to be in a position to receive a reduced judgment for a case, which is less severe. It also has the advantage of preventing the case to go through a long procedure of trials and after such a long procedure if the result is a loss, this can be prevented in the event of plea-bargaining. At the same time, huge expenses on attorney fees can be reduced as a result of this. Going through the long procedures of trial would invoke stress for the defendants, and in the case of plea-bargaining, this can be prevented. A defendant's record would be found much better when the charges are reduced or when the number of charges are either dropped, than the results, which might follow after going through the trial."
Abstract This paper examines the concept of pleabargaining which involves a criminal case in which the defense and prosecution negotiate and compromise a type of arrangement in relation to a defendant's guilt and sentencing. In exchange for a guilty or no contest plea, the prosecution will request a reduction in the charges or sentence that a criminal would otherwise receive. It addresses the costs and benefits of pleabargaining, such as the advantages to the court system, judges and especially defendants. Furthermore, it discusses the pros and cons to all parties involved, including the victims. Lastly, the paper analyzes how pleabargaining could possibly be reformed and the necessity of making it more visible and understandable to society.
From the Paper "Another benefit to some defendants in regard to plea bargaining is the opportunity to be released from jail. Some criminals that would not be released otherwise are released instantly following the negotiation and approval of a plea bargain. It also gives the defendant the advantage of having the matter resolved quickly and having a less severe offense placed on their record. Offenses on one's record can weigh greatly on an individual. Felonies can be very harmful when applying for a job or avoiding some states? "three strikes" rule. Some states even require that professional licenses be revoked upon a felony conviction. Also, a felony conviction can result in the loss of the right to vote and possess firearms."
This paper discusses pleabargaining, a procedure whereby the prosecution and the defense negotiate to reach a resolution outside of the court, resulting in the defendant usually agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser charge or punishment.
Abstract This paper explains that the most common argument on behalf of pleabargaining is that it reduces the courts? heavy caseloads by ensuring that most criminals enter a plea of guilty, thus eliminating the need for time-consuming trials. The author points out that an argument against pleabargaining is that the public usually favors a disciplinary policy for the handling of criminals in society and wants to see everyone pay for the crime committed. The paper relates that pleabargaining denies the defendant his constitutional right to a trial by jury and asks him to waive his rights against self-incrimination and the right to confront witnesses against him.
From the Paper "By having plea bargaining, we are insuring that criminals have to do at least some time for the crime they have committed. Plea bargaining is beneficial to defendants because they use it to reduce the uncertainty and severity of sentencing. If the defendant pleads guilty in return for a compromise, the defendant avoids the risk of a maximum sentence following a guilty verdict at a trial. Other important advantages to plea bargaining is that it allows the defendant a chance to admit their guilt and show some responsibility for the actions they have committed. By allowing a defendant to enter into a plea bargain and plead guilty, the system is shielding victims for having to testify at a trial that may be difficult for them. A trial usually means that a victim will have to relive what happened to them and may damage them."
Tags: caseload, judge, disciplinary, responsibility, rights
Abstract This paper examines how pleabargaining has been a topic of debate for many years and how advocates feel that pleabargains cut down on caseloads, while opponents feel that criminals get off to easy or are punished too harshly by the system of bargaining. It analyzes these two opposing points of view and chooses and supports the one that personally appeals to the author.
Outline
Introduction
Defining PleaBargains Advocates
Opponents
Personal Appeal
Conclusion
From the Paper "A plea bargain is defined as ?an agreement between the defense and the prosecutor in which a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to criminal charges. In exchange, the prosecutor drops some charges, reduces a charge or recommends that the judge enter a specific sentence that is acceptable to the defense.? (Understanding Plea Bargaining? 2002). In most jurisdictions a plea bargain can be arranged at anytime after a defendant has been charged with a crime. In some cases plea bargains are even reached when there is a hung jury because most attorneys would rather arrange a plea bargain than go through an additional trial."
Abstract This paper presents a detailed examination of the pleabargaining system in the United States. The writer explores the history of the system and discusses when it may be used. It then discusses the benefits and the negative elements involved in using the pleabargaining system. The paper concludes that while there are pros and cons to the system, the benefits far outweigh the negative elements because of the time and money that the system saves.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
What Is It?
History
Benefits
Negative Elements
The Comparison
From the Paper "There are numerous benefits to using the plea bargain system. The first and most important benefit from the standpoint of a prosecutor is the fact that it provides an automatic conviction. The prosecution does not have to worry about whether the evidence will hold up under the scrutiny of the system. They have to wonder if their witnesses will be believable during a traditional trial. In addition the prosecution is always at the mercy of the jury members. Jury members are human and subject to human emotion and error. A prosecutor faced with a trial will always be concerned that the jury will feel sorry for the defendant and even if convinced that the defendant committed the crime will acquit or provide a not guilty verdict."
Abstract The paper examines whether capital punishment is an obligation, and as such, whether it is moral. The writer discusses whether there is a difference in the punishment for the same crime for the rich and the poor. The writer explains that what Kant did not take into account was the possibility of a plea-bargain, which is found in the modern form of justice. Plea-bargaining can save innocent lives, if new evidence comes to light. The writer states that justice is not blind, especially not color blind and that lawless ethnic and racial minorities receive harsher sentences. The writer states that Kant judged people to have reason, or at least to be reasonable as an end. The writer posits that if Kant lived in today's world, with kidnapping, mugging, car jacking and murder for profit, then perhaps he would not have looked at the death penalty in the same light. In conclusion, the writer states that even if it is not a deterrent, capital punishment is not legal murder performed by the state and that it is perhaps the only means of providing closure to all those affected by the defendant's crime.
From the Paper "Human suffering is a double-edged sword. Being killed by the state is suffering, of a kind, but it is something a lot of people would agree is deserved punishment. The ultimate punishment. Does this equate with the human suffering caused by murder, treason, or any of the other so-called capital crimes? If Kant thinks that the ultimate achievement of mankind if a form of moral reasoning, then the idea of morality, not merely an arbitrary decision to extract the ultimate penalty on someone who, without benefit of law or reason, ext6racted that ultimate punishment on his or her victim(s). "Are we morally right to sentence someone to death? "In the view of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, 'the American people, fully informed as to the purposes of the death penalty and its liabilities, would in my view reject it as morally unacceptable." (Schabas, p. 93) Being African American, it is obvious that his bias lies beyond the law, but toward the many minorities who are far more susceptible to being sentenced to death. "
