Pros And Cons Of Plea Bargain

With millions of criminal convictions a year, more than two million people may end up behind bars(Gross). According to Samuel Gross reporter for The Washington Post, writes that also “even one percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic [wrongful conviction] errors”(Gross). Citizens who are wrongfully convicted are incarcerated for a crime he or she did not commit. Many police officers, prosecutors, and judges are responsible for the verdict that puts innocents into prison. To be able to get exonerated many wait over a decade just to get there case looked at, not many are able to have the opportunity of getting out. People plead guilty for crimes that are not committed by them to avoid trial, but by doing so the right decision wasn’t made.

A plea bargain is an agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant in a criminal case. The prosecutor gives the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to the original charge with less than the maximum sentence. For example, the prosecution and the defense may agree to a misdemeanor charge instead of a felony charge or the parties may agree to a sentence of 12 years instead of 20 years if the recommended sentence for that crime is 10-20 years imprisonment.

If you could take a deal that would swap your prison sentence from 20 to 16 years even if you were guilty would you? What if you and the defense lawyer didn’t know what the evidence was yet. What if the prosecutor said you can either take the deal or you can go away for as long as i can get? These occur in the plea bargaining system. Plea bargaining is an unethical practice because it can force innocent men to plead guilty, defense lawyers often can't see the evidence in time to advise their client, and it lets criminals get away with a lighter sentence than they should.

The biggest issue within the Criminal Justice system is the large number of wrongful convictions, innocent people sentenced to die for crimes they did not commit. People are put in prison for years, even executed for false convictions. This affects not only those put in prison but friends and family of the accused. Wrongful convictions aren’t solely a tragedy for those directly involved either. It weakens the faith the public has for the justice system as well as poses safety issues; when innocent people are put away, the real criminals are still out there. Luckily, it is known what causes wrongful convictions and how to fix them.

Plea- bargaining is something that is happening in our court systems every day. Plea-bargaining is a choice that defendants are making when they don’t have many options. Can plea- bargains change your life? What effects will it have if you decide to do a plea? Well, plea bargains are not for everyone.

This year has been a difficult year for the criminal justice system of Texas. From the multiple police brutality incidents to people dying police custody that shouldn’t. With the one of the highest percentage of its citizens incarcerated, we can start to see why people feel like the Texas Criminal Justice system has failed them. The plea bargain is just one example that the people feel like the justice system has failed them. I personally feel that even with all of Texas Criminal Justice system’s faults, I feel like Texans can come together to make the necessary changes to make better adapted to the newer generations morals. If not, then people are going to completely lose trust our justice system

I do not think that the plea bargain lets someone off easy. While they might receive a lesser change they also are having the fact that they admitted to doing something taken into consideration by the court system when they decide on the punishment. I feel that it equals out in the long run for those who end up taking the plea bargain. In small cases yes the person might get off with just probation, but is probation was something in condensation then the crime could not have been that detrimental. They would not offer something like probation to a deranged murderer if they confessed to killing someone. I do think they are necessary because like I said for those who only commit small crimes it is easier for them to go through probation or house arrest instead of throwing a potentially nonviolent offender into a jail where they can become a violent offender. I think economically it is a good idea as well as socially to have the plea bargain. If benefits the community and judicial system because it prevents overcrowding and changing a person into something worse than they were as well as makes the process go a lot faster so that the criminal can be dealt with so other things that need to be addressed can be addressed. I would not change the plea bargain; I think that it is a good idea in most case scenarios for those who have committed small crimes because those with big crimes are still going to be dealt with in a harsher

When the jury trial process is replaced with plea negotiations, we lose trust and reliability in the system. When we give efficiency that the plea bargain has provided power, it comes at a substantial cost. People who are indeed innocent of the crimes they were convicted have now been influenced into pleading guilty for the sake of efficiency. Not to mention the collateral consequences that accompany a person when they plead out. It also undermines the reliability of convictions in general (Gilchrist, 2011). Although she was innocent of the charges brought against her, Stewart took the plea. However, her choice had dire consequences, three years after, she is left destitute, ineligible for food stamps and government grants, unable to vote for

There are cases stacked upon cases that must be attended to daily, while at the same time, crimes are being committed. The court system has trouble keeping up, and in order to cease long, drawn out trials, plea bargaining has been allowed in the criminal justice system. This is useful for both criminally charge individuals along with the courts themselves for several reasons. Most people know the case going on with Jared Fogle, the former representor of Subway. In 2015, Fogle decided to plead guilty to child pornography charges along with crossing state lines to exchange money for sex with a minor (Castillo, 2015). Based on this plea deal, Fogle will likely serve somewhere between five and twelve years in prison, pending approval from the court system. This plea deal also states that the government will recommend fewer than thirteen years in the prison system for the defendant, with Fogle paying a minimum of $100,000 for each victim involved in the case. Plea bargaining is extremely helpful for this case. For one thing, defendants that use plea bargaining can evade the expenses and the time of defending himself or herself at a trail, as well as get around risking a worse sentence and the bad exposure that could cause. In addition, the prosecution also saves time and money by avoiding a long, drawn out trial, and both of the sides do not have to stress about going to the trail. It does not matter which side instigates the plea bargain, whether it be the prosecutor or the defendant, but both sides to have to completely agree with each other before something occurs out of that plea bargain. Because of the circumstances, I believe that justice was served. The victims will be compensated for counseling based on what Fogle did, and Fogle will serve his

-Consequently, defendants usually plead guilty to receive incentives from the prosecution. Incentives a defendant may receive from the prosecution might be a reduced sentence or early parole.

Defendants take advantage of the plea bargain system in an intriguing manner - by challenging the effectiveness of their own attorneys. In Strickland v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a two-pronged test to describe what it means for counsel to be considered ineffective under the Sixth Amendment. First, the person seeking relief must be able to demonstrate that counsel’s performance was defective. Further, they must prove that the deficiency of counsel directly deprived the defendant of a fair trial (Strickland v. Washington, 1984). The United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense. It gives defendants grounds for suit not only when they are not told about a potential deal, but also when an attorney advises against taking a deal. In Lafler v. Cooper, the Court decided that the

Jeffrey Dahmer was an American serial killer and sex offender who committed heinous crimes to seventeen men and boys. During a scheduled preliminary hearing in 1992, he pleaded guilty but insane to 15 counts of murder, but was denied. Most people would believe that this man must be sick to do these types of things to other human beings, so why was the plea denied? “A person accused of a crime can acknowledge that they committed the crime, but argue that they are not responsible for it because of their mental illness, by pleading ‘not guilty by reason of insanity.’” (Wex par. 2) We should eradicate the insanity plea with the three points of; it is hardly ever used, scarcely gets accepted and it looks like an easy way out. On the opposing side the plea should stay for people to

A plea bargain occurs when the defendant of a crime and the prosecutor create a deal in which the defendant accepts to plead guilty in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Plea bargains are important in the Criminal Justice system because most court cases are resolved

"If the Defendant confesses to the defense attorney in the hallway this morning, the defense attorney’s job is still to do the best job he can to defend him." This was an attempt to try and sway the jury into looking down upon the defense attorney, which will still defend their client, even if they know they are guilty. I believe that whether or not the client confesses his guilt or not, the defense attorney should still do everything to spare his client, just like how the prosecution will try everything legally possible to try and get a

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which were introduced about three decades or so ago, allow judges to issue a minimum prison sentence at the discretion of the prosecutor, who determines the charges that are placed against a defendant. These laws, as outlined by the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation (n.d), limit the power of the judges to make a judgment on the punishment that can be given to a defendant. The meaning being that mandatory minimums transfer the power to give sentences from the judges to the prosecutors, a scenario that is worsened by the fact that some prosecutors misuse this power. As such, mandatory minimum sentences should be repealed, particularly for the gun and drug-based offenses.