In most cases, plea bargaining is used in various criminal justice systems in the world. Despite its preference, many people seldom praise the agreement. As a matter of fact, people view it has a way of favoring the offenders, whereby it develops a possibility of been given a nonequivalent justice to the offence committed. Perhaps, many people believe that plea bargaining is a shortcut to intended justice that is authorized by the law system. On the other hand, other view the move as appropriate, and the best way to make the offenders plea quality for the offence committed.
Plea bargaining refers to the agreement that takes place in a criminal case in court between the defendant and the prosecutor. The defendant in court agrees to be guilty to a certain charge, and in return, the offender benefits from prosecutors concession. For example, the defendant pleads quality to certain charge, and in return the offender benefits by been given a lenient form of sentence or a dismissal of other forms of charges (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worral, 2010). Generally, agreements under plea bargains are achieved through negotiations between the defendant’s attorney and the prosecutor. In this case, the decision and agreement to plea quality should come from the defendant. The laws that deal with pleading quality are mostly certain and have some clarity.
In the criminal justice system, there is the difference between sentence bargaining and charge bargaining. In some occasions, plea-bargaining may entail bargaining for the form of punishment. The offenders plead guilty with an intention of receiving a lesser charge, as well as a lesser punishment. Therefore, charge bargaining refers to the state in which an offender bargains for a reduction in severity, or the number of criminal charges (Devers, 2011). On the other hand, sentence bargaining refers to a state where the offender bargains for prosecutors recommendations, sympathetic sentence, as well as direct bargaining during the trial. On issues pertaining sentence bargaining, the trial judges go for an imposition of sentence that is less severe as compared to the recommendations of the prosecutor. It is crucial to understand that sentence bargaining and charge bargaining are the most utilized type of plea bargaining (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worral, 2010).
There are various disadvantages and disadvantages of plea-bargaining. In fact, the advantages and disadvantages affect both the prosecutor and the defendant. In reality, plea bargaining saves a lot of money and time, this is directly related to the trial. If the jail term is reduced of eliminated, the defendant will continue been productive in the society. Despite the critics, plea-bargaining benefits various people in the criminal justice system. On the defendants side, plea bargaining is crucial especially to those offenders facing more than one charges. The offender will significantly benefit from reduction of the sentence, as well as dropping of charges. The cost of trial and attorney’s fee is always high, but when the cases are dropped prior to trial, then it saves a lot of money (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worral, 2010).
Undeniably, plea bargaining reduces congestions in courts and facilitates the management of cases in the criminal justice system. In fact, plea bargaining will ensure that offenders plead guilty, and the case is concluded so easily, allowing prosecutors to handle other cases of greater importance. Plea bargaining brings to end various uncertainties that are associated to trials. Generally, the defendant may receive a reduced sentence or utilization of other better sentencing alternatives. In most cases, courts have witnessed various appeals, but plea bargaining is the best way of eliminating the possibility of appeals (Fisher, 2004).
On the other hand, there are various disadvantages of plea-bargaining. The main aim of a criminal justice system is to administer justice and make decisions of cases. Plea-bargaining may lead to innocent defendants to plead guilty in fear of being found quality. This is so unfair decision for criminal defendants, especially those who are innocent. Moreover, plea bargaining make the evidence available invalid, this is because the prosecutors will not base most of the decisions on the available evidence as attend by the law (Devers, 2011). Hence, plea bargaining does not prove the guiltiness or innocence of the offender. In addition, judges and attorneys assert that plea-bargaining leads to poor preparation of attorneys to face cases as well as minimal police investigations. In fact, plea-bargaining focuses more on ending cases rather than finding justice to the defendants. Plea bargaining is also unconstitutional because it completely takes away the constitutional right of defendants to free and fair trial by jury. But, when the defendants are for plea bargaining, then it becomes constitutional.
Conversably, plea-bargaining in one way or another thwarts the due process of criminal justice models and crime control. For example, the due process models always assert presumption of innocence. Plea bargaining drives the defendant to plea guilty so as to receive a lesser punishment. Perhaps, it is unconstitutional to make an individual plead guilty for the crime she/he did not commit (Siegel, Schmalleger & Worral, 2010). Additionally, plea bargaining breaks the constitutions right of the defendant to face trial. It is mainly a shortcut to justice, rather than following the right procedures of administering justice. Police activity is very crucial during trials and many cases depend on facts found by police. Plea-bargaining does not give room for the utilization of police investigations (Fisher, 2004). Due process models asserts that the police investigation is critical in administering and maintaining justice in community, a claim that plea bargaining does not follow. Giving a defendant a lesser punishment than what is defined by law may encourage other people to commit dangerous crimes. This implies that plea bargaining do not serve the purpose of crime control and reduction.
References
Devers, L. (2011). Plea and Charge Bargaining. Arlington: Bureau of Justice Assistance
Fisher, G. (2004). Plea Bargaining’s Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America.
London: Wiley.
Siegel, L., Schmalleger, F & Worral, J. (2010). Courts and Criminal Justice in America. New
York: Prentice Hall
