Three Types of Plea Bargains - Essay Example

?Running Head: Plea-bargaining Plea-bargaining Lecturer: Plea-bargaining accounts for 90% of convictions in the US. Plea-bargaining is where the accused person pleads guilty in a negotiation with the prosecutor where concessions form the motivation for the bargain (Ross, 2006). The advantage of this system is that there is no need for a trial, a right that the defendant waives losing the chance for acquittal. However, the defendant “escapes” with a lesser charge than would have been the case had trial been done. The state saves on the cost of conducting a trial (Grossman & Katz, 1983). For the system to be operational, there are issues that are pre-negotiated including the reduction of charges, recommendations regarding the sentence itself or the guarantee that the prosecution would not oppose a request for probation. The process of plea-bargaining after the crime is committed and the accused person is arrested. The accused pleads guilty in exchange of an agreed sentence recommended by the judge. There are three types of pleas bargains. These are charge bargaining, count bargaining and sentence bargaining. The first type of bargain is where the defendant agrees to plead to a charge that is lesser than the one he is charged with. The second is where the defendant will have the number of charges that he faces reduced in number and the third is where the defendant simply pleads guilty with prior knowledge of what the sentence will be. The process of plea bargaining is a private matter where only the accused, the defendant counsel, the prosecutor and in some cases the judge may be in attendance. The offer of plea bargain is used to locate stolen goods, to help arrest other culprits or to know the location of a kidnapped victim or a killed individual. A plea bargain does not undermine the system of law. Although the facts indicate that the practice usually leads to reduced sentences to guilty parties without the process of trial, there are benefits that aid in offsetting the negative sentiments expressed in relation to the practice. There are many advantages to plea bargaining as there are disadvantages. Considering the success rates of plea bargaining compared to that of trials, the practice inadvertently aids in the reduction of criminals on the streets as well as guarantee speedy dispensation of justice (Goldstein, 1997). In exchange, the prosecution gets information that might be valuable to the conviction of more serious crimes or may get information that might be the missing link towards the conclusion of a case in a court or an investigation. There are instances where plea bargaining has been considered as lacking. The prisoner?s dilemma scenario plays out during plea bargains (Schulhofer, 1992). Consider two people who have been accused. The prosecution will attempt to unearth the facts of the case by offering a plea bargain to one party so that he can testify against the other party. Regardless of whether both parties are guilty or not, the person who confesses will give false information incriminating even those who may not be guilty in an attempt to get himself out of the larger sentence. Another scenario is when the defendant cannot raise bail. Such a defendant will plead guilty to the charges leveled against him regardless of whether he is guilty or not. Such a person considers the length of time that trials usually take and chooses to plead to a plea bargain that might present a lesser time than that which he would have faced awaiting trial. Some critics argue that plea bargaining does not always result in saving on costs (Kipnis, 1979). They consider that a prosecutor who has a remote chance of getting a conviction may enter a plea bargain with the aim of getting reduced time for the defendant. If such a defendant accepts the deal, he will increase the cost to the state as he will be catered for in a jail. On the contrary, if the trial had dragged on until the end, the defendant would have been acquitted and that would have carried no extra cost to the state. There are incentives that are attached to plea bargains for them to be attractive to the people they are aimed at. On the contrary, the use of coercive means and threats has also been cited as a way of inducing plea bargains. The latter means have been a source of critism especially outside of the US as it infringes the rights of individuals detailed in the European Convention on Human Rights that formed the basis for the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK. There is an inherent incentive in plea bargaining for the defense attorneys. In case a case goes to trial, the attorney will receive less money since the cost of the trial has to be shored up. In avoiding a trial, the fee increases as there are no costs attached to trial. In this way, defense attorneys may be motivated to enter into plea bargains. Moreover, a defense attorney and a prosecutor who have an agreement to plea bargain will inadvertently strengthen their relationship. In future cases, a former successful plea bargain could from the basis for subsequent plea bargains to the benefit of both parties. Prosecutors have been known to guard their conviction rates. Therefore, plea bargains present them with the opportunity to add on to their rates regardless of the sentence that the defendants will face. Judges on the other hand also are motivated to support plea bargains as it means speedy justice for involved parties as well as reducing the work load. Plea bargains present the defendants with valuable opportunities to purge records of crime. For example, if a person is charge for a first time for driving under influence (DUI), a plea bargain may reduce the charge to reckless driving. In a second charge of DUI that carries mandatory jail time, the defendant will avoid the sentence as the records will not indicate a first incidence of DUI. Plea bargains also present the defendants with the opportunity of avoiding hassles and cutting on costs. A trial is usually an expensive affair and hiring and maintaining the services of a lawyer might be expensive. A plea bargain will ensure that a lawyer is not needed and will aid in saving on costs. Plea bargains additionally present the defendant with the opportunity to avoid publicity. A plea bargain will ensure that the defendant avoids a public spectacle in the form of trial that might be an embarrassing fete for the defendant and the family depending on their social standing and the nature of the crime in question. News of plea bargains may be public but they are relatively short lived compared to those of trials. Furthermore, the private life and background of the defendant is not explored in a plea bargain as it is in a trial. References Goldstein, A.S., (1997) “Converging Criminal Justice Systems: Guilty Pleas and the Public Interest”. Isr. L. Rev., 31, pp. 169 Grossman, G.M. & Katz, M.L., (1983) "Plea bargaining and social welfare", The American Economic Review 73 (4): 749–757 Kipnis, K., (1979) “Plea Bargaining: A Critic's Rejoinder”. Law & Soc'y Rev. 13, pp. 555 Ross, J.E., (2006), "The Entrenched Position of Plea Bargaining in United States Legal Practice", The American Journal of Comparative Law 54: 717–732, Schulhofer, S.J., (1992), "Plea Bargaining as Disaster". The Yale Law Journal 101 (8): 1979–2009 Read More