In chapter 10 of Examining Wrongful Convictions: Stepping Back, Moving Forward our authors Take a look into our plea-bargaining systems role into wrongful convictions. According to our authors plea- bargaining dispose of roughly 95 % of adjudicated criminal cases (Maguire, Tbls. 5.24.2008, 5.46.2006). Over my years of taking criminal justice course I have learned to so many innocent people actually plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence which lead to an exoneration is evidence of just that. Wrongful convictions produce out of our Plea Bargaining are much less likely to result in an exoneration due to the defendants own admittance. As we have learned, there are many reasons to why a innocent man may plead guiltily for a crime
…show more content…
Ive learned there is a simple answer to this. They fear more time. When a defendant confesses to a crime in order to accept a deal from the prosecutor, the justice system believes that they are admitting to is the truth and have no reason to believe it’s a lie. As a result, the defendant will most likely waive their right to appeal the sentence and their deal. If the defendant does want to appeal a guilty plea, most likely the judge and the jury are asking them sleeves, “if he didn’t do it, then why did he admit to it”. Making it much harder for a guilty plea to be tossed. This also brings into question his or her creditability, changing your statement after some time to think about it may seem odd to some. Changing a plea is easier done by the defendant, if he or she has favorable evidence against the prosecutors case. This evidence may be the lack of creditability the prosecutors main witness, DNA evidence or something that can confirm his or her …show more content…
There is also evidence supporting that there may be more innocent people who have admitted guilt in jail due to lack of DNA evidence. The lack of DNA evidence can help the prosecutors case in the event where an individual who admitted to the crime they have not committed wants to appeal his deal. By admitting to the crime, the court believes that this person has admitted to their wrong doing with no evidence to support the defenses appeal, most jury’s would say no innocent man would admit to something they did not
Ive learned there is a simple answer to this. They fear more time. When a defendant confesses to a crime in order to accept a deal from the prosecutor, the justice system believes that they are admitting to is the truth and have no reason to believe it’s a lie. As a result, the defendant will most likely waive their right to appeal the sentence and their deal. If the defendant does want to appeal a guilty plea, most likely the judge and the jury are asking them sleeves, “if he didn’t do it, then why did he admit to it”. Making it much harder for a guilty plea to be tossed. This also brings into question his or her creditability, changing your statement after some time to think about it may seem odd to some. Changing a plea is easier done by the defendant, if he or she has favorable evidence against the prosecutors case. This evidence may be the lack of creditability the prosecutors main witness, DNA evidence or something that can confirm his or her …show more content…
There is also evidence supporting that there may be more innocent people who have admitted guilt in jail due to lack of DNA evidence. The lack of DNA evidence can help the prosecutors case in the event where an individual who admitted to the crime they have not committed wants to appeal his deal. By admitting to the crime, the court believes that this person has admitted to their wrong doing with no evidence to support the defenses appeal, most jury’s would say no innocent man would admit to something they did not