Plea bargaining and its effect on criminal justice sentencing decisions

Plea bargaining, otherwise known as: a plea agreement, plea deal, or copping a plea, is a process in which a criminal defendant and a prosecutor arrive at an agreeable decision in a criminal case (which is subject to judicial oversight) (Standen, 1993, pp. 1471-1473). The prosecutor presents the defendant an opportunity for them to plead guilty without any trial, in exchange for: the dismissal of the charges or there is a reduction in their sentence. The process can put forward certain quandaries to defense attorneys. Wherein, they will decide whether this is a good deal for their client or is they should maintain an effective relationship with the prosecutor (Vanover, 1998, pp. 183-184).

The problem with plea bargaining is: that it is the most critical and significant process in the criminal justice system. This is particularly true in cases involving sentencing decisions. In the United States' criminal justice system, plea agreements have been a fundamental factor. Wherein, the federal courts sentence approximately 96% of: criminal perpetrators with guilty plea (Spohn & Hemmens, 2009, p. 327). Over the last few years, this has been used widely in court procedures. As, it has come to a point where the constitutionality of the practice was: extensively questioned.

The objective of this study is to determine the influence of: plea agreements on the criminal justice system, primarily its effect on sentencing decisions. Moreover, this study aims to determine different ways in which: the system can be improved. Once this takes place, it will provide specific insights about the underlying strengths and weakness of the use of this legal strategy.

Review of Related Literature

In the initial years of the United States' criminal justice system, the process of plea agreements was not yet influential. In one instance a defendant was sent to prison to realize the consequences that come with his guilty plea (Spohn & Hemmens, 2009, p. 328), wherein he decide to withdraw the plea itself.

The involvement of plea agreements in the justice system began after the Civil War, and it eventually received extensive application during the 19th as well as 20th centuries (Spohn & Hemmens, 2009, p. 329). There were also theories that developed, which focused on how plea bargaining managed to occur and continued to gain acceptance. In spite of countless Supreme Court cases that involved the use of plea bargaining, there were still debates that focused on: its real application and its effect on the criminal justice system. Many contended that the nature of plea bargaining is against the basic tenets of the Constitution.

However, they claimed that plea agreements are vital because of the various restraints that are in place. It is also effective in resolving criminal cases within the boundaries of the basic principles of the Constitution (Moss, 2010, p. 10). As, legal scholars have presented many arguments that focused on: the nature of plea bargaining and its effects on the criminal justice system. This involved: its practices, effects, and approaches that define the general context of the process.

Timothy Lynch (2003) analyzed the systems of plea agreement, with relation to its constitutionality. He stated that even if criminal defendants have the right to surrender at a trial. It still does not prevent prosecutors from trying to use this tactics on a number of individuals (Lynch, 2003, p. 25). Moreover, Lynch stated that the Supreme Court has somehow undone these practices that are used by the federal and state governments. Specifically, those individuals that intended to: violate certain constitutional rights. This, according to Lynch applies, "Even if the one whose rights were being limited had an option to avoid such penalty" (2003, p. 26).

Furthermore, he protested and questioned the power that governs criminal cases, citing that the Supreme Court failed to determine the reasons why a prosecutor must be permitted to control the defendant. With him saying, "The rights of individuals in regards to their trials show a greater chance for harsh plea bargaining methods to be perpetrated." (2003, p. 26). At which point, Lynch provides an account of a person who is indicated. Where, he adds that the person has the right to hire an attorney for their legal defense on: his behalf or to stand in for himself without the aid of a legal counsel. As a result, plea bargaining, predominantly effects the sentencing decisions. However, it does not allow the prosecutors or defendants the right to make a contract. As a result, this makes it a biased process in the criminal justice system (Lynch, 2003, p. 27).

He further argues that the system will remain unfair, if it continues to apply the plea bargaining process in the majority of cases. This is because the defendant will not be able to decide whether or not to: take their chance at trial and that the person's rights will create punishments that are different from each other (Lynch, 2003, p. 27). In general, the United States' criminal justice system has to make changes in the way it handles cases, and that it needs to determine the implications of plea agreements on sentencing decisions. In addition, the constitutional rights of a defendant, more often than not, are at stake when a plea bargain is being made (Lynch, 2003, p. 27).

Aside from Lynch's view that plea bargaining is unconstitutional; Sandefur (2003) provided his own analysis on the flawed process of plea agreements. However, in his article In Defense of Plea Bargaining, Sandefur maintains that plea agreements are still constitutional despite some of the most obvious drawbacks. He further stated that, "Plea bargaining is a process that has a great potential for abuse, but it is neither unconstitutional nor an infringement on the defendant's rights" (Sandefur, 2003, p. 28). This is important, because it showing the contrasting views on the use of this legal strategy and its constitutionality.

However, there are still unfair practices under plea agreements that need to be addressed in the criminal justice system. The most notable example is: the U.S. Supreme Court case the United States v. Ruiz. They found that prosecutors can use this as way to reduce the time involved with a trial, while protecting the defendants Constitutional rights (Sandefur, 2003, p. 28). Moreover, he addressed the concerns that are relevant to the Sixth Amendment, in which Sandefur claims that even though there are inalienable rights, it will only matter if there is balance between the two sides (Sanderfur, 2003, p. 29).

There are certain federal and state court cases that a defendant can waive their rights a jury trial, wherein these were either were granted or prohibited by the court (Sanderfur, 2003, p. 29). The focus of Sandefur's arguments is that all the trials, which used plea bargaining, showed instances where the defendant had the privilege to do what he wants in the justification of his case. (Sandefur, 2009, pp. 29-30). This is significant, because it shows how this tactic is used by defendants as a matter of choice.

He further noted in the 1979 Supreme Court case of Gannett Co. Inc. v. DePasquale that the society, or the public has no right to a trial that can be defended autonomously by the parties involved in the proceedings (Sandefur, 2003, p. 29). This is because the defendant has the privilege to: waive a jury trial or to hire legal help in defense of his case, since it is one of the primary civil and alienable rights of an individual. Moreover, it can be traded in high profile court cases that involves plea bargaining. This is important, because it shows that plea agreements are playing a significant role in court cases most notably: in sentencing decisions.

In the case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes, Sandefur asserted that the ruling presented by the Supreme Court is complicated. Where, he finds that the involvement of plea bargaining violates the basic tenets of the Constitution. However, plea agreements need to maintain their effectiveness in every court case, in order to establish credibility and validity (Sandefur, 2003, p. 30). On the other hand, Sandefur stated that there are more effective ways on how the Bordenkircher v. Hayes could have been addressed. This is considering the fact that the defendant was not punished when he declined to plea bargain and he was sentenced for violating the Habitual Crime Act (Sandefur, 2003, p. 30).

In addition, Sandefur disproves the argument of Timothy Lynch, which focused on the relation between the defendant's privileges and the rights of the people who were held against their will. Lastly, Sandefur concluded that the punishments and conviction of the defendant, if proven innocent, will result in a trial setting. This cannot be used in cases where the sentencing guidelines are against the plea agreement (2003, p. 31).

Moreover, innocent defendants are sentenced to imprisonment without valid proof. This is because they usually withdraw their not guilty plea during the trial. Sandefur stated that, "The defendants are so afraid of criminal trials, that they will regularly plead guilty to crimes they did not commit in order to avoid having to go through the process." This means that, "It is an indictment of the criminal justice system, not plea bargaining itself" (Sandefur, 2003, p. 31). The Constitution incorporated the right to a trial into the process, and it does not necessarily entail that: the defendant needs to know his rights in waiving them or hiring a legal counsel to help. Sandefur finally stated that, "Plea bargaining is not perfect, but its problems are procedures and not constitutional" (Sandefur, 2003, p. 31). This is important, because it is highlighting the different views on how the plea bargaining process works.

Methodology

In order to make significant changes in the process of plea agreements, Fisher (2007) suggests in his article The Boundaries of Plea Bargaining: Negotiating the Standard of Proof that we need to reconstruct these procedures. This is based on: the arguments presented by legal scholars and the current condition of plea bargaining in the United States criminal justice system. At which point, we will examine how these procedures can be modified

This proposal aims to acquire proof for criminal convictions, entailing all the necessary documents. Based on these standards, the issue of plea bargaining can be addressed, and there will be options in determining how to solve this dilemma which includes: a full trial or a plea bargain itself. Moreover, the United States criminal justice system has been centered on self-incrimination by the defendant, since this became a part of sentencing decisions (Fisher, 2007, p. 947). The acquisition of proof will provide more ways of improving the effectiveness of the process in both: the prosecutor's and the defendant's cases.

The proposal does not entail self-incrimination by the defendant, and it will develop / create possibilities for all of the parties involved in a trial. This is accomplished through the evidence presented, which gives the defendant more control of how to address his case. As a result, this is showing how the process can be augmented to tackle the concerns of critics

Through this, the defendant can exchange information with the prosecutors for lesser charges, most notably when he waives his right to a trial. Furthermore, it will provide more advantages to the prosecution, since it will not only delineate the processes involved with the trial. But, it will also lessen the reduction and possible errors that could be committed when handing these cases. This is a defining the turning point of the parties involved, specifically witnesses for the prosecution. Wherein, it sets aside the outlays of the investigation, in: determining a plea or acquiring a guilty verdict from the defendants.

If this methodology will be applied to the plea bargaining process, the advantages will eventually show in: the pursuits of the defense and to the prosecution in how plea agreements are determined. The defendant will be more inclined to lessen the costs of the trial in a personal context, as well as considering: the prison sentence, financial difficulties, and other factors. However, the role that the prosecutor plays in the plea bargaining process, when standard proof for criminal convictions are acquired, is likely to take full advantage of the cost per offense.

As a result, the procedure will play a significant role in sentencing decisions or in the criminal justice in general. This will take place when an evidentiary waiver for a guilty plea becomes more considerable in terms of: the punishment and prosecution for the defendant. On the other hand, the main disparity between: the goals of acquiring proof for criminal convictions and the conventional ways used in handling cases is a process of negotiation between the two different sides. This is more significant compared with the defendant's only option of pleading guilty, when asked about how he wants to address the case surrounding his defense.

In analyzing the general acceptability and validity of the standard proof of conviction, all parties can determine the divergence involved with these kinds of cases in terms of: autonomy, efficiency and distributive justice. The arguments that are currently presented against the plea bargaining process can also be taken into consideration on how it should be modified. As a result, this entails the use of constitutional rights as a key in considering something that is a contradiction to the interests of all parties.

However, in the proposed means of addressing plea bargaining, there are criminal processes involved that might affect the structure. This will enable the court to effectively perform its role in the society. If standards of proofs or convictions are utilized, there could be initial difficulties in its execution upon criminal procedures. Moreover, it will require larger amounts of time before it effectively playing a significant role in the judicial processes. This is because the standard of proof does not essentially determine the spirit of sentencing guidelines, or any other judicial decision for that matter.

In addition, there is a need to augment the number of individuals who are knowledgeable and exposed to criminal convictions (based upon a lack of or questionable evidence in the case). The innocent defendant will eventually be able to protect himself against: a more critical sentences or judicial decisions. This is because the court examines the merits / demerits of the case and the witnesses' claims to determine how it should proceed.