Plea bargain processes and legal implications

¶ … plea bargaining system in the United States. The writer explores the history of the system and the pros and cons of its use.

The American justice system promises everyone the right to a fair trial by a jury of peers. While the idea is sound in theory, there are many factors that make it inconvenient in several arenas. A trial by jury is often time consuming and costly to the taxpayers The prosecutors have to have time to prepare a case, and if the defendant cannot afford to pay a defense attorney the public defender's office will provide one, at taxpayer's expense.

In recent years the American public has pushed for harsher and longer sentences as well as more frequent prosecution of those accused of committing crimes which translates to the court dockets becoming overcrowded (Fisher, 2003). Jury selection is another factor in the inconvenience of a jury trial as many people work to get out of serving on a jury.

One of the most common solutions in America to the judicial overload dilemma is the plea bargain system.

WHAT IT IS Before one can begin to understand the benefits and problems of the plea bargain system one needs to first understand what it is and how it works.

A pleas bargain is what occurs when someone is charged with a crime and does not want to go through the trial process (Fisher, 2003). The prosecutor on each case gathers the evidence that the law enforcement agency has put together, as well as the reports from any other agencies or witnesses in the case. Once that information is compiled the prosecutor makes a determination about whether or not to proceed with a case.

If the prosecutor feels the evidence will not stand up in court he or she may decide not to follow through with the case and the charges are dropped.

If, however, the prosecutor feels there is enough evidence to go through with the case, a trial date is set.

The prosecutor at this point or any other time throughout the process may decide to offer a plea bargain. In addition the defense attorney has the ability to go to the prosecutor and offer to have the defendant enter a plea bargain (Carney, 1999).

A pleas bargain means that the defendant will plead guilty without going through a trial and in exchange for that guilty plea a sentence will be given. Plea bargains usually involve the agreement to have the defendant plead guilty to a lesser charge than the original charge entailed.

An example of this would be a defendant that is accused of murder and enters a plea bargain for a guilty plea to manslaughter.

Another example of plea bargaining can cross the lines from felony to misdemeanor. A defendant accused of a felony may enter a plea bargain at the agreement of both parties to a misdemeanor and in this way avoid going into criminal court, possibly getting a felony conviction, which can be life altering (Fisher, 2003).

HISTORY

Plea bargaining came into existence shortly after the foundation of the nation however, it did not gain popularity until late in the 20th century. In the last few decades plea bargaining has taken on new importance as it has begun to overshadow actual trials in America's court system.

Historically prosecutors have introduced plea bargains when they have been in a position of power with an upcoming trial. They have been likened to a primordial instinct of the soul of prosecutors (Fisher, 2003).

The beginning of the plea bargain system can be traced to Middlesex County in the middle tier courts. Between the years of 1787 and 1849 plea bargains were available and used but they were considered a rarity instead of the norm.

During those years when plea bargains were offered and accepted two thirds of the cases happened in cases of alcohol charges.

Why? Liquor cases in this period were unusual in that the penalty structure was carefully prescribed: anyone convicted of being a "common seller of alcohol" had to pay a twenty-pound fine, and individual sales called for a payment between two and six pounds, as well as whatever costs were assessed by the prosecutor (Fisher, 2003)."

However, in 1852, the Massachusetts legislature removed the prosecution's power to nol pros without the judge's consent. This eliminated the prosecution's key leverage over defendants in liquor cases: the power to charge and then drop some charges in exchange for a plea. Sure enough, the number of clear plea bargains dropped dramatically, and the number of trials increased concomitantly (Fisher, 2003)."

BENEFITS

There are numerous benefits to using the plea bargain system. The first and most important benefit from the standpoint of a prosecutor is the fact that it provides an automatic conviction. The prosecution does not have to worry about whether the evidence will hold up under the scrutiny of the system. They have to wonder if their witnesses will be believable during a traditional trial. In addition the prosecution is always at the mercy of the jury members. Jury members are human and subject to human emotion and error. A prosecutor faced with a trial will always be concerned that the jury will feel sorry for the defendant and even if convinced that the defendant committed the crime will acquit or provide a not guilty verdict.

All of these elements come into play when a defendant chooses to go to trial.

The plea bargain method also saves a significant amount of time and money. A trial involves not only the time and services of the government provided prosecution, it also often involves the expense of hiring expert witnesses and their accommodations during the trial period. The cost of legal investigations are also born by the state and federal taxpayers and can be quite costly.

The benefits of the plea bargain system far outweigh the negative elements of its use but there are some negative elements involved.

NEGATIVE ELEMENTS

When one decides to use a plea bargain arrangement rather than go to trial it can hinder the closure process of the victim or victim's families of the crime. While a plea bargain saves time and money for the taxpayers it often mandates that the defendant receive a lesser conviction and sentence than he or she would have received if a conviction from a full trial would obtain.