The advent of plea bargaining in the legal system in the past century has rendered the classic "trial" virtually obsolete. Plea bargaining1 is a crucial feature of our criminal justice system, as approximately 95% of convictions that occur within a year of arrest are obtained by a guilty plea. For at least a century, the institution of plea bargaining' has been a central feature of the American system of criminal justice. In September 203, the Justice Department again revised its guidelines regarding plea bargains. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike have generally assumed that the reason for this is the enormous size of the case load in relation to the available legal personnel. Is a plea bargain a type of confession? A confession may “trump”
…show more content…
Supreme Court’s early decisions on plea bargaining approve plea bargains as involving not just a stationhouse confession but as “more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts” (Garrett 4). To be sure, plea bargains are justified on many other important grounds, particularly because they are efficient, they avoid uncertainties of outcomes at trial, and they permit choice, compromise, and flexibility. The many critics of plea bargaining point out how even the innocent may plead guilty to avoid higher penalties at a trial, with the resulting process empowering the prosecutor and largely eliminating judicial oversight. Plea bargains are not confessions, but part of their power and seeming legitimacy comes from the defendant admitting to guilt—or at least appearing to do so. Practices range widely, with some courts even tolerating plea bargains en masse with nothing particularly individualized about the process. If a plea bargain is a confession or an admission, it is often one stating, “I did it,” with “it” being the legal definition of the crime, but not what was done or how or …show more content…
The supporter also states that the fairness of the judicial system would collapse. Stanford Law Professor George Fisher estimates that trying even a quarter of all cases would result in five times as many trials. There would have a significant increase in money and personnel to cover such an increase, supporters say. Opponents argue that plea bargains endanger judicial fairness by allowing defendants to escape punishment or coercing them into foregoing trials. Plea bargaining should be regulated and limited by the federal government. “It’s very hard to deter crime if there’s a perception that a person isn’t going to be held accountable for his or her actions, “says Bill Mercer, U.S. attorney for Montana. Others criticize plea bargains because they deprive defendants of fair legal treatment overriding what the defendant really
Supreme Court’s early decisions on plea bargaining approve plea bargains as involving not just a stationhouse confession but as “more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts” (Garrett 4). To be sure, plea bargains are justified on many other important grounds, particularly because they are efficient, they avoid uncertainties of outcomes at trial, and they permit choice, compromise, and flexibility. The many critics of plea bargaining point out how even the innocent may plead guilty to avoid higher penalties at a trial, with the resulting process empowering the prosecutor and largely eliminating judicial oversight. Plea bargains are not confessions, but part of their power and seeming legitimacy comes from the defendant admitting to guilt—or at least appearing to do so. Practices range widely, with some courts even tolerating plea bargains en masse with nothing particularly individualized about the process. If a plea bargain is a confession or an admission, it is often one stating, “I did it,” with “it” being the legal definition of the crime, but not what was done or how or …show more content…
The supporter also states that the fairness of the judicial system would collapse. Stanford Law Professor George Fisher estimates that trying even a quarter of all cases would result in five times as many trials. There would have a significant increase in money and personnel to cover such an increase, supporters say. Opponents argue that plea bargains endanger judicial fairness by allowing defendants to escape punishment or coercing them into foregoing trials. Plea bargaining should be regulated and limited by the federal government. “It’s very hard to deter crime if there’s a perception that a person isn’t going to be held accountable for his or her actions, “says Bill Mercer, U.S. attorney for Montana. Others criticize plea bargains because they deprive defendants of fair legal treatment overriding what the defendant really