Plea bargaining is said to be the most critical process in the criminal justice system. A Plea Bargain is a practice whereby the acussed forgoes his right to plead not guilty and demand full trial and instead uses a right to bargain for benefit. This benefit is usually related to charge or sentence. In other words, Plea Bargaining refers to a process where the accused’s plea of guilty has been bargained for and some consideration has been received for it. A plea bargain is derogation from the concept that a judge can only decide the sentence after hearing in an open Court.
This way the defendant and their attorney would be able to see if they actually have enough evidence to win the case in court. This would element most of the innocent people pleading guilty out of fear of long prison sentences like what Mr. Gampero did. The second thing I would change is that if the Judges or prosecutors make treats to put someone in prison for a long period of time if they do not take the plea then the case must be thrown out of be tried by a different jurisdiction. Like what happened with the OC snitch
Plea bargain is an ethical issue stated in the documentary Plea bargain. The plea bargain documentary explains how pleading guilty in a plea bargain is a way to get a reduced sentence or get out free of a charge. At times taking the plea bargain might not be the best option but sometimes it’s the only choice. According to the prongs of deontological perspective, pleading guilty is a solution to be let out free, a reduced charge and dismissed a charge off. The universalizability of plea bargain is that any prosecutor who has no way out of case and happened to have difficulties such having a low income, or an a serious degree (first or second degree murdered) case would act the same by taking decision to take the plea bargain of pleading guilty
Defendants are presumed to be guilty upon their arrest and resolving their cases is a major point in this model. Plea deals are used to alleviate the overcrowding in the criminal justice
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
However, in 2003 a new 'two strikes' law was enacted (effective April 4, 2005), requiring courts to presume that a criminal who commits his second violent or dangerous offence deserves a life sentence unless the judge is satisfied that the defendant is not a danger to the public. This resulted in far more life sentences than the 1997 legislation. In response to prison overcrowding, the law was changed in 2008 to reduce the number of such sentences being passed, by restoring judicial discretion and abolishing the presumption that a repeat offender is
As aforementioned, the Supreme court’s decision to overrule Betts v. Brady resulted in a new trial for Gideon. The Supreme Court made a wise choice in overruling the Betts v. Brady decision, on account of it being too vague, would create more expensive problems in the future and a fair trial cannot be held if a defendant lacks counsel. The Betts v Brady over the years gain the special circumstances factors including youth, illiteracy, ignorance, mental illness, complex charges or judge and prosecutor behavior at the trial. This left the limitations open to interpretation by the state, this decision to leave flexibility appears to attempt to preserve state power on the issue. However, 25 states sent amici curiae briefs in support of Gideon’s right to counsel
"While I do believe being tough on crime is a good thing in general, it's the role of the judge to determine it." Mandatory minimum sentences often tie a judge's hands, robbing them of their right to tailor sentences to a specific situation. I suppose tough-on-crime laws “worked" if success is only measured by the increase of prisoner populations. However, one of the unbelievable little details of this new tough-on-crime stance is how differently the federal government views crack cocaine and powder cocaine. I am thankfully not an expert on cocaine or its use, but a cursory Google search tells me that crack cocaine is just powder cocaine mixed with baking soda.
Some examples of when threats and promises may make a guilty plea involuntary include situations when: A defendant’s attorney threatens withdraw as counsel and a family member threatens to withdraw bail if he doesn’t plead guilty The prosecution knows that it doesn’t have probable cause to believe that a defendant actually committed a crime but threatens to prosecute him unless he pleads guilty The prosecution threatens to prosecute a member of the defendant’s family, even though it doesn’t have probable cause to believe that the family member committed a crime, unless the defendant pleads guilty The prosecution promises the defendant that he’ll get a certain sentence or punishment if he pleads guilty but the prosecution knows or has a good reason to believe that the judge won’t give the defendant the promised sentence There are many threats and promises, however, that won’t make a plea involuntary. For
The other aspect of plea bargaining that poses a problem is guilty defendants receive a lesser sentence for the crime they committed. Plea bargains are supposed to help the courts not to be overcrowded, but in return, innocent people are being locked up. Another reason of why the courts are the most problematic component in the criminal justice system is because of the corruption in the courts. Examples of the corruption that happens in courts can include jury tampering, racism, and judges being bribed. The forms of corruption that occur in the courtroom can have an impact on the end result of a case.
Both sides will carefully weigh the strength of their case and decide whether it is prudent to go to trial. The prosecution may also consider the publicity surrounding the case and whether there is public pressure to prosecute that particular defendant to the full extent of the law. The defense will consider the individual defendant’s desire to go to trial and the seriousness of the potential sentence. The Pros of Plea Bargaining For the defendant, the most significant benefit to plea bargaining is to take away the uncertainty of a criminal trial and to avoid the maximum sentence. Society also benefits from plea bargaining since the agreements lessen court congestion and free up prosecutors to handle more cases.
In closing, both discredited eyewitnesses and jurors can determine and outcome of a trial, resulting in a life changing decision for the person that is accused. Many studies have supported that jurors will vote in a higher rating of guilty when an eye witness is present even if they are discredited. Though it is less in terms of an unrefuted eyewitness in comparison to a discredited eyewitness as our study
The United States criminal justice system is riddled with cases of many varieties. Some have obvious outcomes while others warrant more detailed analysis. However, some cases go beyond the court into other courts, where they are decided, such as Jackson versus Hobbs in 2012. The courts try to lighten the load of cases they have by offering plea bargaining, an agreement among a defendant and a prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty to a charge that is less severe than what he or she is initially charged for in the hopes that clemency will be administered. Sometimes, however, people accused of a crime are completely innocent, and it is not until technology is released, such as DNA testing, decades later that these people are proved to
However, a defendant might accept a plea bargain from the prosecution before trial, because the evidence against them is overwhelming. If that is not the case, the prosecution will have to prove their case to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, and the defendant should have to serve jail or prison time for their punishment as a result of their crime. In conclusion, many people believe the Texas Judicial Branch needs refurbishing for the 21st century. However, the Texas Judicial Branch operates efficiently now despite some minor issues that critics perceive as inadequate for the 21st century. Perhaps in the future, some areas of our judicial system could be streamlined to better meet the needs of our society as we grow our ever more diverse society here in the state of Texas.
The goal of the tuition cap is to streamline the education financial process, rather than taking it away. Tuition caps should not create artificially low prices in the education market, but there needs to be extra pressure on colleges to contain costs; which there’s not right now. Requiring colleges to stay under the cap can help control the increasing prices of education, as the continual receival of federal funding and tax exemptions can be used as an incentive for those colleges who comply. Furthermore, tuition and fees have grown more than twice the rate of inflation each year (Wolfram, 2005). If colleges and universities choose to increase tuition cost more than the CPI, not only should they lose federal funding and tax exemptions, but also it should be mandatory for them to use money from their endowments to fully fund grants for students on financial aid; instead of the federal government increasing the Pell grant each award year to make up that extra