Plea bargaining is when you plead guilty to a crime that you’ve committed. The defendant is always informed of what rights they are waiving. The judge has to determine if the defendant voluntarily plead guilty. The cons of plea bargaining are that you won’t get as many rights as you would if you didn’t plead guilty. You put yourself at more risk …show more content…
Maryland was a court case that ruled on that any evidence found should be presented in front of the defendant. Brady guidelines should be applied because it offers information from the prosecutor to the defendant that can be useful for them to know. The only bad part of the presentation of evidence is that defendants can’t say that it is wrong since they’ve accepted guilt. Evidence can include DNA, reports, and witness statements. (Rennison et al.). The bad part of Brady rights is that it hides police and prosecutor misconduct. The prosecutor can charge the defendant more than what the defendant deserves. Judges aren’t really involved in plea deals (Robb 2017).
If I were convicted of a non-violent felony (first of all that wouldn’t even happen) I would choose to go to trial because I’m given the chance to have more time to prepare for it. If I did plea guilty I would be more restricted with rights and I’d prefer to have a year or more to prepare than risk getting serious sentencing. I could have a higher chance of winning the trial. Plus, I could have the possibility of not getting incarcerated if I win the trial.
In conclusion, plea bargains and Brady rights have a big role in the lives of criminals because it can affect them in such ways if they accept that they are guilty. Plea bargains can have certain benefits even if they restrict some rights. When the defendant pleads guilty their punishment is in the hands of the