BuddyJesus

Just another person editing this thing.

Pages created or added to significantly by me:

Original pages

Redirects

First Law of Robotics (Redirect to Three Laws of Robotics)
Segregationist
Cheyenne Campaign (Redirect to Cheyenne War)
Tech-Com (Now Redirect to The Human Resistance)
Royal Marine Light Infantry (Redirect to Royal Marines)
Royal Marine Artillery (Redirect to Royal Marines)
Anti-Masons (Redirect to Anti-Masonic Party)
New-York Herald (Redirect to New York Herald)
Military of the U.S. (Redirect to Military of the United States)
Stem Cells (Redirect to Stem cells)
Magnet Schools (Redirect to Magnet school)
Dom Helder Camara (Redirect to Hélder Câmara)

Saved from old pages

Claims in favor of plea bargaining

One of the key arguments in favor of plea bargains is that they help courts and prosecutors manage caseloads. In the United States, defendants have a right to a speedy trial under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as by statute. The meaning of "speedy" is not fixed in terms of a specified amount of time but is determined according to the circumstances. However, if the speedy trial is not held, the case is dismissed and the defendant cannot again be charged with the crime. (See: Double Jeopardy) By plea bargaining, prosecutors can reduce the number of cases set for trial so that cases do not get dismissed.

Thus it can be argued that the American criminal justice system would simply cease to function without plea bargaining, and that it forms a framework wherein the accused and his accusers can reach an agreement which settles the case once and for all, in what is hoped will be a spirit of fairness.

Another reason plea bargains are favored is that it allows criminals who accept responsibility for their actions to receive consideration for their remorse and for not causing limited resources to be expended in further investigating and litigating their case...i.e. it lets the justice-system skip the 'making them feel sorry for what they've done' and get straight to the 'accepted punishment.'

In other cases, a defendant may be culpable in one criminal matter, but have information that would help in prosecuting a broader or more significant matter. In such a case, prosecutors may agree to reduced charges or sentencing in the first matter, in exchange for the defendant's cooperation (e.g. testimony) in prosecuting the larger matter.

In still other cases, prosecutors may be certain of the guilt of the defendant in a matter, but the admissible or available evidence might not be enough to convince a jury of the defendant's guilt. This could be the result of a witness or victim dying prior to trial or certain evidence being lost or ruled inadmissible. In those situations it can be of benefit to both the prosecutor and the defendant to arrange a plea bargain; the prosecutor avoids the chance that the defendant could be found not guilty and the defendant avoids the chance that he or she could be found guilty of more serious charges or given a heavier punishment.

Plea bargaining also allows prosecutors to settle cases without forcing a victim to endure a lengthy court process or have to testify in a jury trial. This can be particularly important in cases involving fragile witnesses or victims (young children in sexual abuse cases, elderly people who have been victimized by relatives, seriously ill people and others).

Claims in opposition to plea bargaining

Critics of the system claim that the plea bargain system can put pressure on defendants to plead to crimes that they know that they did not commit, and that the outcome of a plea bargain may depend strongly on the negotiating skills and personal demeanor of the defense lawyer, which puts persons who can afford good lawyers at an advantage.

Furthermore, critics claim that the system can encourage prosecutors to overcharge at the start of a case which leads to caseload pressures or unusually severe penalties; one claimed example is young murderer Lionel Tate who received a lengthy sentence for killing a young girl. Finally, many jurists, especially in civil law nations, find the notion of plea bargaining contrary to the purpose of the law in which a specific action should be associated with a specific penalty. The introduction of a version of plea bargaining was highly controversial in France, see below.

Lastly, the plea bargain may itself carry unintended ramifications. In some situations, notably where resident aliens are defendants in the United States, pleading guilty to a felony in a plea bargain should result in the criminal being deported. Because a state judge has no influence over immigration decisions by the federal government, a resident alien charged with a crime may take a plea bargain, plead guilty, and consequently be deported by the federal government for committing a "crime of moral turpitude." Such unintended or unforeseen effects of either a plea bargain or conviction at trial are sometimes called the collateral consequences of criminal charges.

This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.