Plea bargain processes and legal outcomes

Plea Bargain

The objective of this study is to answer as to whether justice is served when a defendant is allowed to plea-bargain his or her case in court and why. This process is such that the prosecutor enables the defendant to plead guilty to a charge that is lesser than the original charge with less maximum sentence than the original charge.

There are many various factors that determine whether each case will be eligible for a plea bargain. This involves both sides of the case weighing the strength of their case and whether going to trial would be an effective resolution to the case. Another factor that determines whether a plea bargain might be satisfactory is the public push for prosecuting the case to the full extent of the law. The defense attorney gives consideration to the desire of the individual defendant to go to trail and the seriousness of the sentence that might be given if the defendant is found guilty following a jury trial.

Opinion on Plea Bargains

Plea bargains have both pros and cons. The adverse consequences of plea bargain agreements include that police have grown accustomed to defendants accepting plea bargain agreements and this often results in sloppy police work that does not follow processes of due clause and that often result in violation of the civil rights of individuals when police use warrantless searches and violate other laws in their investigations. Because the police believe that the defendant will enter a plea bargain agreement, the cases that they investigate and arrest on often will not stand up to the scrutiny of a jury trial. However, plea bargains do result in a more efficient process that gains more convictions and thus more income for the criminal justice system. As well, plea bargaining avoids the costs associated with jury trials making the criminal justice process more efficient. While it has been argued by some judges and attorneys that the process of plea bargaining is unconstitutional since it removes the constitutional right of the defendant to receive a trial by a jury. (Blankenship, 2003, paraphrased) However, the defendant does retain their rights at all phases of the process in the criminal justice system to have a trial by a jury therefore, many judges and attorneys hold that the process of plea bargaining does not remove the constitutional rights of the defendant. Plea-bargaining in the case of drug crimes is particularly pertinent when one considers the biblical principles of justice since there are no biblical punishments meted out for the use of intoxicants on the part of the individual. While a crime committed while the individual is using intoxicants would receive punishment such as robbery or theft, no law exists biblically to prosecute the use of intoxicants only as a criminal offense. While the law of the Old Testament states punishment should be in the form of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21: 24, Bible Hub, 2013, p.1), the New Testament laws do away with the old laws and render them inapplicable.

Summary