Abolishing the Plea Bargaining System
97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence (Goode, 2012). A plea bargain is an arrangement that happens between a prosecutor and the defendant in a criminal case. The prosecutor gives the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty to their charge or a lesser charge in order to avoid trial and the possibility of receiving the maximum sentence. While it would seem that plea bargains are equally beneficial to both prosecutors and defendants, plea bargains are overwhelmingly beneficial to the prosecutor and it is the defendant who ultimately can be harmed by plea bargaining. Plea bargaining should be banned because it bargaining circumvents the Constitutional rights for defendants, leads to shortcuts in the judicial system and can lead to increased convictions of the innocent. …show more content…
Going to trial is perceived as risky because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. As a result, many defendants enter pleas for a lesser charge instead of taking that risk. For example, in 1963, Henry Alford was indicted on first degree murder charges. Although he plead guilty to the crime, he maintained his innocence. The plea deal offered him a life sentence in place of capital punishment. Alford he was coerced into a confession and plead guilty for the fear of the death penalty. Alford’s claims led ultimately to a Supreme Court decision that said that it was Constitutional to accept a guilty plea to a crime from an innocent person as long as they were competent (North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). An “Alford Plea” as it has since become known as since, allows for a defendant to admit there is enough evidence to convict him but does not admit
97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence (Goode, 2012). A plea bargain is an arrangement that happens between a prosecutor and the defendant in a criminal case. The prosecutor gives the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty to their charge or a lesser charge in order to avoid trial and the possibility of receiving the maximum sentence. While it would seem that plea bargains are equally beneficial to both prosecutors and defendants, plea bargains are overwhelmingly beneficial to the prosecutor and it is the defendant who ultimately can be harmed by plea bargaining. Plea bargaining should be banned because it bargaining circumvents the Constitutional rights for defendants, leads to shortcuts in the judicial system and can lead to increased convictions of the innocent. …show more content…
Going to trial is perceived as risky because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. As a result, many defendants enter pleas for a lesser charge instead of taking that risk. For example, in 1963, Henry Alford was indicted on first degree murder charges. Although he plead guilty to the crime, he maintained his innocence. The plea deal offered him a life sentence in place of capital punishment. Alford he was coerced into a confession and plead guilty for the fear of the death penalty. Alford’s claims led ultimately to a Supreme Court decision that said that it was Constitutional to accept a guilty plea to a crime from an innocent person as long as they were competent (North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). An “Alford Plea” as it has since become known as since, allows for a defendant to admit there is enough evidence to convict him but does not admit