Abstract
A plea bargain has defined the court proceedings in the recent history of the criminal justice system. As such, prosecutors and judges have adapted to the policy to carry on activities while practicing copping plea arrangements so as to reduce the number of pending cases and the pile that characterizes most of the district magistrates’ courts. On one side, the idea of a plea bargain has greatly enhanced the efficiency of the legal systems. This is because it has reduced the time for prosecutors to work on various trials as well as reducing the instances of overcrowding in jails (Clark & Ansay, 2002). On the other hand, however, those opposing the plea bargain idea point out the high level of laxity and bureaucracy in the general administration of the legal system. In a view of both sides of the argument, the paper analyzes the general influence of plea bargain in relation to its significance as well as criticism.
Introduction
Before going into the background information and analysis of the topic, it is fundamental to understand what it means by plea bargain. In this regard, according to Feinman (2000), a plea bargain, also known as copping plea or plea agreement refers to a sought of agreement that happens in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor asks the defendant to plead guilty to a charge in exchange for some incentives from the prosecutor. In most cases, the defendant pleads guilty to a case that is less serious so that he/she avoids a more lenient sentence (Bar-Gill & Ben-Shahar, n.d.). It also happens when there are several charges and the defendant plead guilty to only one of the charges to help the prosecution speed up the proceedings. Such a practice dominates the court and legal systems of today. To some extent, researchers have credited the practices especially for its ability to instill high level of efficiency in the court system. However, the practice also marks the incompetence of the legal and court system. For the purpose of this research, it comprehensively analyzes the significance of plea bargain from an objective stand point of both proposing and opposing sides of the idea/issue as well as discussing the policy implications relevant to the idea.
The history of the plea bargain can be drawn from the early years of the eighteenth century. This is the time when almost all ordinary jury trials were judge-dominated as well as lawyer-free procedures (Shelden, 2001). During these days, the plea bargain was deemed unnecessary. However, the rise of evidence-injected procedural trials thereafter, it brought some high level of complexity to the court system. To a far extent, case hearings began to drag while the prosecution took much time to find enough evidence that would lead to a conviction of the accused. It meant that even member of the society facing a jury would find time to hire prominent lawyers to stand a chance of winning a case. The practice also meant that cases took longer and longer to mature and in no time, the pile of cases characterized all courts, especially in the United States.
The routine presented unworkable environment for the jury and most legal system workers. It was hectic to deal with a lot of cases that piled every new day. Members of the sources began to feel that justice never happens at the court. This is because somebody could be arrested today and the hearing of his/her case could take more than a year or close to two years. To the defendant, the presumed drag of cases was a relief especially when he/she faces more serious charges. However, in the event that the charges are minor and of less magnitude, the defendant is presented with a hectic time and huge procedural task of court hearings that seem never to end.
Going to the 19th century, several fortuitous factors inclined the common law procedures to adapt into strategies that would reduce the mounting caseload. One of the adopted procedures was – of course – the nontribal plea bargain. Instead of refining the proceedings to ensure that trials take a considerable amount of time, it was thought that plea bargain would bring the anticipated huge impact to reduce caseload and instill the efficiency of the legal system in the United States. Then, the plea bargain was increasingly accepted in the US. However, it was not the case in most countries as it was thought that it presents a platform for defendants to avoid the ideal sentences that match their deeds. Also, to the plaintiff, the plea bargain was seen as justice not found.
Various changes led to the acceptance of plea bargain. These changes are attributed to innovation especially in the age of technology. Technological advancement increased the digitalization of systems in the legal administrations. Apart from, technology, policy changes that advocated for a reduction of time for a hearing was adopted in the US and most developed countries. However, this does not mean that plea bargain was abandoned completely. To some extent, the idea was thought to be ideal in the execution of cases that lacks huge magnitude or in one way of the other, lack appropriate and adequate evidence for a trial. Today, the plea bargain is still a practiced procedure despite the expert commentary criticism.
Analysis
Getting out of jail
Under a normal circumstance, a jury presents a platform for the accused individual to defend themselves so that they can prove their innocence. However, it is also fundamental noting that not all defendants in most cases are guilty. Some defendants may have found themselves in the front of a jury by circumstance, but they never engaged in criminal activity in the reality. In such a scenario, defendants are held in custody despite their innocence. Further, such individuals may not afford the bail that would help them get out of custody. Evidently, the concept of the plea bargain is hugely of a benefit in this situation. This is because; it provides a chance for such defendants to plead guilty of some minor accusation offenses so that they serve short penalties in the magnitude of probations and community services rather than continuing to find justice in the normal procedure that would present them to more suffering.
A Quick Resolution
As mentioned earlier, adequate evidence is what most lawsuits wait for before a person is convicted. Not all situations that evidence is readily available. It may take longer for the prosecution to find tangible evidence that would lead to one’s conviction. In such a situation, the defendant will remain suffering under custody even if they will be termed not guilty of the offense at the end. Instead of being in such a situation, a plea bargain gives the defendant with the option to plead guilty for some of the charges that are minor and serve for a penalty in a limited time. It is a quick fix or a resolution to the pending cases in the court rather that sticking to the anticipated long wait until a decision is made.
Sentence Reduction
It is also evident that most cases that are pending in the court system are less-serious cases. In essence, it is only logic that the defendants to such cases plead guilty and avoid the strain and torture of the remand environment. This applies to most low-earning individuals especially when they have nothing to pay for a bailout. Also, a sentence reduction means that even if a person is never rearrested, the “three strikes” law applies that there is a chance for one’s sentence to be reduced from, for example, a felony to a misdemeanor. In the United States, such a reduction is of interest to preserving the rights of the defendant in their future endeavors. For instance, instead of denying the chance for a person not to vote because they are charged with a felony, the charge could be reduced to misdemeanor so as the convicted can exercises his/her voting rights (Champion, 2007).
In light of the benefits attributed to the concept of a plea bargain as discussed above, it is also worth mentioning that the idea is associated with various concerns. These concerns have led to commentaries to oppose the implementation of such a procedure in the court and legal system. In fact, the concerns have led the idea being unaccepted in most countries other than the USA in the world society today. These concerns may be looked at in the view of the following;
Conflicts the Constitution
Although plea bargaining has helped in freeing many people from convictions in the USA, it is believed to present a conflict to the U.S Constitution (Law Review, 2006). Like the case in other constitutions that govern different nations, the U.S constitution provides that a jury trial should take a course in the due process until a case is complete. It does not provide a short-cut procedure like what the idea of the plea bargain. It means that when an individual is arrested, they should comply with every step in the court proceedings till the end and any other attempt to sabotage the proceedings is unlawful. To some extent, the plea bargain may present a platform for injustice hence damaging the credibility of the entire court system and the law application as provided by the U.S Constitution.
Fair Trial
Also, even though defendants are freed as a result of plea bargain procedures, not all of them get this benefit. In fact, it is believed that some category and members of the society get special treatment when it comes to the procedural implementation of the plea bargain concept (Griffiths, 2008). This brings into the administration of the justice system into a question of credibility. The criterion to grant a plea bargain to a defendant as opposed to another defendant is also not well articulated. It means that there is no proper procedure to determine who deserves a plea bargain. As a result, there is no fair or equal treatment of defendants as the law suggests. The Reality on the ground is that there is discrimination in the general administration in the application of the plea bargain, and some defendants will never get the chance to a fair trial (Tor, Gazal-Ayal & Garcia, 2010).
Constitutional Rights
Expert critic to plea bargain also suggests that some individual rights are violated when a person pleads guilty on the basis of the concept alone. The constitution clearly stipulates that every individual has their constitutional rights to face a free trial by a jury. Further, when facing to such a trial, the person has the right to cross-examine the witness as well as confront and challenge the evidence against him/her. In many countries other than the U.S, this is the basic procedure for a judicial system as the respective constitution provides (Adelstein, 2008). However, in the wake of the idea of the plea bargain, such a procedure is presented with constitutional problems. Evidently, it denies one the constitutional rights to undergo or challenge the evidence in the best possible manner and walk out free.
Policy Implications
In response to the associated literature as discussed above, it implies that the idea of the plea bargain is worth of practice in the judicial system despite the mentioned challenges it brings. However, there has to be a criterion to balance between the procedures that one gets a plea bargain and that where an individual faces the actual proceedings to justice. This balance can only be attained if there is transparency in the judicial system to the extent of earning the public trust from all members of the society. Further, a particular clause detailing the procedures of plea bargain should be included in the constitutions so that the idea can be recognized under the laws of the land (Bibas, 2009). This will also provide proper guidelines for the administration of the concept in application to the U.S court system. The guidelines will also provide a platform for a balanced execution of the concept hence avoiding malfunctions in the judicial systems.
The malfunctions that will be addressed, for instance, according to the American Criminal Law Review – Summer 2006, there is a general increased trend of defendants pleading guilty to minor accusations. The tendency saw an increase of the practice from 91% to 96% as from the years 1994 to 2003. Such statistics hugely bring concerns as to whether the legal system has abandoned the procedural normal of people facing the jury and challenging the evidence against them in a free and fair trial. To make the situation even worse, the 96% increase rate is considered understatement as more cases happen especially from the year 2003 onwards. This research finding means that there are huge loopholes in the justice system especially when it comes to the application of the plea bargain concept. In order to cease such a situation from happening, it becomes a duty for every concerned member of the legal and judicial system to formulate strategies that define a clear way of plea bargain application.
It is also fundamental, in this regard, that further research is done on the benefit accrued from the idea of plea bargain. Specifically, the research should touch on the implication of the policy and how it is connected to the political system as well as the economies related to criminal justice. Although plea bargain is generally perceived to be economical and well as bringing application efficiency of the justice system, this has come at expense to the proper course of the law to the current generation. Here, certain attributes such as the use of technology and various law amendments to speed up the trial time for defendants will only mean that there is order and public trust to the judicial system and our future generation will have a credible court system.
Conclusion
As discussed above, the paper has provided a comprehensive analysis of the plea bargain concept and how it is relevant in the present day society. It has also given a detail background history of the concept and various arguments on both sides; for and against. The proposing view fixes the advantages brought by the concept in assisting humanity. However, the opposing view focuses mainly on the constitutional rights of every member of the society and a proper course of the law application. Having been accepted in the judicial system of the U.S, a proper framework to the application of the plea bargain idea has to be researched so as to gain the influence and acceptance to other countries. In this regard, the larger society will be better position to live on the basis of principles that uniformly govern the world’s greater society.
References
Adelstein, R. P. (2008). The Plea Bargain in Theory: A Behavioral Model of the Negotiated Guilty Plea. Southern Economic Journal, 44(3), 488. doi:10.2307/1057205
Bar-Gill, O., & Ben-Shahar, O. (n.d.). The Prisoners' (Plea Bargain) Dilemma. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1000209
Bibas, S. (2009). The Feeney Amendment and the Continuing Rise of Prosecutorial Power to Plea Bargain. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.460448
Champion, D. J. (2007). Probation Trends in Felony Cases: a Look At Prosecutorial Decision- Making in Plea Bargain Agreements. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 3(2), 25-37. doi:10.1177/104398628700300203
Clark, D. S., & Ansay, T. (2002). Introduction to the law of the United States. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Feinman, J. M. (2000). Law 101: Everything you need to know about the American legal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Griffiths, G. D. (2008). Plea Bargain Expedite Justice : Opposing viewpoints in context. Legal System.
Law review. (2006). Negotiating Justice: Prosecutorial perspectives on federal plea Bargaining in the District of Columbia. American Criminal Law Review - Summer 2006.
Shelden, R. G. (2001). Controlling the dangerous classes: A critical introduction to the history of criminal justice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tor, A., Gazal-Ayal, O., & Garcia, S. M. (2010). Fairness and the Willingness to Accept Plea Bargain Offers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(1), 97-116. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01171.x
