Consolidated draft
Policy decisions that we seek to undertake, in most occasions, are in conformity with the aims and goals of its implementation. However, that being said, there are several tangential inroads which are made to facilitate convenience and a breed of compromise so as to achieve the realistic aims of public policy. While I agree, that in the criminal administrative system, bridging the gap between what is aimed at and what can be done in a modern day society paradigm, seems to be the biggest challenge and therefore certain alternatives to the conventional means of law enforcement are mandated. That being acceded to, this paper seeks to analyze one such method, which is Plea bargaining and how its implementation seems to not serve …show more content…
This forms the crux of the subject matter of my first and primary argument. However, it is intrinsic that the concept of plea bargaining must be well established before further argumentation along the lines above can be made.
Feinberg has very interestingly portrayed punishment to aptly suit my resentment towards the institution of plea bargaining as being “a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation, on the part either of the punishing authority himself or of those “in whose name” the punishment is inflicted.” It has been a central idea that where the offenders act on their own volition, the states reserve the right to punish them.
Blacks Law dictionary defines plea bargaining as "the process whereby the accused and the Prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to Court approval. It usually involves the Defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver …show more content…
The entire premise under which several if not all the penal codes in the world are drafted, have been with idea that either through the principle of retribution, deterrance, or reformation, the punishment which is being imposed needs to be at par with wrong being committed. Lets look at this from the individual principle point of view to elaborate a clearer picture. If the aim of punishment is in effect retribution, then the wrong may not have been deemed to have been judicially avenged if the wrong “granted” is entirely different. Walker, a prominent author in the area has identified that the sentencing authority must choose the sentence that is most appropriate, and that a retributivist may take extenuating circumstances into account, forgiveness not being one such .From the point of view of detterance and the installation of fear into the minds of both those who have committed the crime and those who are yet to commit them, this act of bargaining only seems to contradict the purpose of detterance entirely. However, there have been varying perspectives based on concerns about whether current philosophies reflect notions of being “tough on crime.” It rather seems to be a way through which offenders would voluntarily commit acts of heinous nature and use plea bargaining to evade liability of that magnitude and be awarded something far lesser and have the graver charge
Policy decisions that we seek to undertake, in most occasions, are in conformity with the aims and goals of its implementation. However, that being said, there are several tangential inroads which are made to facilitate convenience and a breed of compromise so as to achieve the realistic aims of public policy. While I agree, that in the criminal administrative system, bridging the gap between what is aimed at and what can be done in a modern day society paradigm, seems to be the biggest challenge and therefore certain alternatives to the conventional means of law enforcement are mandated. That being acceded to, this paper seeks to analyze one such method, which is Plea bargaining and how its implementation seems to not serve …show more content…
This forms the crux of the subject matter of my first and primary argument. However, it is intrinsic that the concept of plea bargaining must be well established before further argumentation along the lines above can be made.
Feinberg has very interestingly portrayed punishment to aptly suit my resentment towards the institution of plea bargaining as being “a conventional device for the expression of attitudes of resentment and indignation, and of judgments of disapproval and reprobation, on the part either of the punishing authority himself or of those “in whose name” the punishment is inflicted.” It has been a central idea that where the offenders act on their own volition, the states reserve the right to punish them.
Blacks Law dictionary defines plea bargaining as "the process whereby the accused and the Prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to Court approval. It usually involves the Defendant's pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that possible for the graver …show more content…
The entire premise under which several if not all the penal codes in the world are drafted, have been with idea that either through the principle of retribution, deterrance, or reformation, the punishment which is being imposed needs to be at par with wrong being committed. Lets look at this from the individual principle point of view to elaborate a clearer picture. If the aim of punishment is in effect retribution, then the wrong may not have been deemed to have been judicially avenged if the wrong “granted” is entirely different. Walker, a prominent author in the area has identified that the sentencing authority must choose the sentence that is most appropriate, and that a retributivist may take extenuating circumstances into account, forgiveness not being one such .From the point of view of detterance and the installation of fear into the minds of both those who have committed the crime and those who are yet to commit them, this act of bargaining only seems to contradict the purpose of detterance entirely. However, there have been varying perspectives based on concerns about whether current philosophies reflect notions of being “tough on crime.” It rather seems to be a way through which offenders would voluntarily commit acts of heinous nature and use plea bargaining to evade liability of that magnitude and be awarded something far lesser and have the graver charge