In today's era, when a criminal is charged for various crimes their given a shortcut to justice by simply accepting a plea deal. In this case, Larry Servedio faces multiple felonies: first-degree kidnapping, first-degree rape, third-degree rape, third-degree criminal sexual act, third-degree criminal mischief, criminal impersonation, second-degree grand larceny, and second-degree strangulation. Servedio was also indicted for several misdemeanor charges: first-degree harassment, second-degree aggravated harassment, second-degree menacing and torturing and injuring an animal. If Mr. Servedio goes to trial and is able to prove his innocence of the charges pressed against him, then he is a free man and all charges get dropped. Yet, if Mr. Servedio
There are many issues associated with plea bargaining. The accused could benefit with the possibility of a reduced or combined charges, reduced attorney fees, and the chance of a reduced or shorter sentence that may be imposed by going to trial. Plea bargaining can also give the prosecutors the ability to convict the accused even if they have a weak case and there is question whether or not they can get a conviction. It also will save time and resources necessary for trial. This will apply to defense attorneys as well, they may be unsure of their ability to get an acquittal for their client; however, in some cases the accused many know in his heart that he is innocent and want to go to trial.
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
Our arguments against plea bargaining were based on the fact that it removes a fundamental Constitutional right from defendants, the right to a fair trial. There are many different reasons to be against plea bargains, and they all stem from this singular idea of denial of fundamental rights. It is clear that “…plea bargaining has undercut the goals of legal doctrines as diverse as the fourth amendment exclusionary rule, the insanity defense, the right of confrontation, the defendant’s right to attend criminal proceedings, and the recently announced right of the press and the public to observe the administration of criminal justice,” (Alschuler, 1983). The process of plea bargaining strips defendants of these rights and defenses and opens the
In the United States court system, many criminal cases are not resolved in a timely manner. One of the more common ways in which many cases are resolved quickly is through plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is defined as an agreement between defense attorneys and prosecutors. (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012) Alschuler (1979) describes plea bargaining as the self-conviction act of a defendant. Today, approximately ninety percent of defendants plead guilty because of plea bargaining.
Guilty or not guilty, all citizens deserve a thorough trial to defend their rights. Formulating coherent stories from events and circumstances almost cost a young boy his life. In Twelve Angry Men, 1957, a single juror did his duty to save the life of an 18 year old boy by allowing his mind to rationalize the cohesive information presented by the court and its witnesses. The juror’s name was Mr. Davis, he was initially the only one of 12 jurors to vote not guilty in reason that the young boy, sentenced with first degree murder, may be innocent. I am arguing that system 1 negatively affects the jurors opinion on the case and makes it difficult for Mr. Davis to convince the other jurors of reasonable doubt.
One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.
Plea-Bargaining and its Impact on the Criminal Justice System Introduction The criminal justice system is made to give the punishment to the accused according to the law. Those communities who have a fair justice system usually get success and equality among all the citizens. There are many procedures which are used to settle down the matters between the defender and prosecutor side. Some are related to the justice procedures and others are used to settle down matter outside the courts like plea- bargaining.
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.
Plea barging is an important part of the admistration of justice because it saves time and makes the process quicker it also gives the chance for the defendant to plea guilty or not guilty. I would improve plea bargain by being fair with the people serving justice, no person should go thru what the two women went thru in the video. Both women had an attorney who they trusted the attorney only spoke to the judge and convinced both women to plea guilty. I believe attorneys should be fair with their clients they should be treated equally not by their income. The negative consequence of plea barging is many innocent people pea guilty fear of serving jail time and the cost of probation.
Since the founding of our judicial system there have always been individuals claiming innocence to a crime that they have been found guilty of, traditionally, after their sentencing no matter how innocent they may or may not be would have to serve, live and possibly die by the decision of their peers. The Innocence Project, founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck alongside Peter J. Neufeld faces this issue by challenging the sentencing of convicted individuals who claim their innocence and have factual ground to stand upon. The Innocence Project uses the recent advances in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing to prove their client’s innocence by using methods that were not available, too primitive or not provided to their clients during their investigation,
Since the courts are backlogged and many public defenders and judges being overworked, this causes plea bargaining to be used repeatedly. According to Walker et al. (2018), plea bargaining leaves many people no option but to plea guilty even when this is not their best option. This is due to a multitude of reasons but mainly to receive a lesser charge. For example, a felony and little time in jail may be better than risking multiple felonies and an excessive amount of time in jail.
The three basic types of plea bargains: the first one is where the defendant may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge; the second is one is, at the request of the prosecutor, a defendant that pleads guilty may receive a lighter sentence than they would if not requested; and thirdly a defendant may plead guilty to one charge in exchange for the prosecutor’s willingness to drop other charges that could be brought. There are three factors that will cause a prosecutor to decide on a plea bargain, they are the seriousness of the offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and how strong of a case the prosecutor has. Plea bargains serve interest to just about everyone that is involved. Plea bargaining serves the interest of all court’s
People plead guilty for crimes that are not committed by them to avoid trial, but by doing so the right decision wasn’t made.
In this paragraph, the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury will be discussed. The main advantages are that juries introduce community values into the legal process and can influence the system (Joyce, 2013); they can achieve a sense of equity and fairness without enforcing unjust laws; in addition, juries are independent and neutral (Davies, 2015). Moreover, they guarantee participation from the public in a democratic institution (Hostettler, 2004), and represent the population thanks to the randomness with which jurors are decided (Davies, 2015). On the other hand, the most important disadvantages are that jurors have no prior contact with the courts, no training (Hostettler, 2004) and therefore they lack knowledge of law, courtroom proceedings (Joyce, 2013), and lack of ability to understand the legal directions (Thomas, 2010). Moreover, they must face evidence which is highly technical (Hostettler, 2004).
