This research proposal investigates whether the public supports plea bargaining in cases involving violent and serious crimes, hypothesizing that public opinion is largely opposed to its use in such contexts. Drawing on prior studies — particularly Julian V. Roberts' survey data from Canada and Sergio Herzog's 2003 factorial-survey study from Israel — the proposal outlines a structured survey methodology using eight crime scenarios and multiple independent, dependent, and control variables. The study aims to generate current, empirically grounded data on how demographic factors and crime seriousness shape public attitudes toward plea bargaining, and how those attitudes may influence actual sentencing outcomes.
Plea bargaining is not a legal punishment assigned to criminal behavior, but is a tool that has been utilized by an overburdened legal system poorly equipped to otherwise deal with the enormous numbers of criminal cases that filter through it. Without plea bargaining, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and finders of fact would be required to meet the legal definitions of the rules of evidence — processes that could involve lengthy timelines and significant costs associated with bringing cases to trial and through the court system. Plea bargaining has also served as a means by which to ensure that a person who cooperates with law enforcement and prosecutors benefits from that cooperation, usually through a reduced sentence. However, plea bargaining does not guarantee that a person who has bargained for a lesser sentence through the quid pro quo of cooperation will actually receive it.
At the end of the day, the decision to abide by a plea-bargained arrangement rests with the court. If the court finds that the weight of the crime and the resulting public opinion exceed the terms of the plea bargain, it can nonetheless impose whatever penalty falls within the legal parameters of remedies for that crime.
The hypothesis that constitutes the basis of this research is that the public is not supportive of plea bargaining in cases of violent crimes. The research proposed here will provide valuable information in support of this hypothesis. Based on the hypothesis, study and analysis of existing cases should support it with measurable data demonstrating that public opinion has impacted the sentencing decisions of courts regardless of plea bargains.
Julian V. Roberts' book Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal Justice reports on a series of surveys that examined public opinion on certain aspects of legal procedure and process. In 1988, a survey of public opinion in Canada found that four out of five people surveyed disapproved of plea bargaining (Roberts & Stalans, 1997, p. 210). "There was little demographic variance in attitudes. Moreover, the link between attitudes toward plea bargaining and views of sentencing was clear. People who regarded plea bargaining as unacceptable also thought that sentences were not harsh enough" (Roberts & Stalans, 1997, p. 210).
The same survey showed that the prosecutors' reasons underlying the plea bargain impacted public opinion: "the presence of information about a plea bargain in scenarios had the impact of changing public evaluations of criminal justice professionals" (Roberts & Stalans, 1997, p. 210), though it did not change their overall opinion of the practice itself. For example, subjects who read about a case in which a plea bargain had taken place held more negative views of the prosecutor (Roberts & Stalans, 1997, p. 210).
Some studies have shown that public opinion and actual sentencing in plea-bargained cases "supports the view that the public are not harsher than the courts, or at least are not as consistently harsh as the poll findings would suggest" (Roberts & Stalans, 1997, p. 210). In other words, the sentences imposed by courts tend to comport with what the public would deem reasonable for the crime.
In 2003, Sergio Herzog's study titled The Relationship Between Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness and Support for Plea-Bargaining in Israel: A Factorial-Survey Approach discusses public opinion at length and contains insightful survey results (Herzog, 2003, p. 103). The report would serve to support the research proposed here, and the data it contains would offer a basis for comparison to determine changes or consistency in public opinion over time.
Herzog's study highlights an important methodological consideration: the use of terminology. The meaning of certain legal terms as understood by the general public must be addressed in any survey in order to ensure a level survey base (p. 103). Herzog's study is among the best of the available studies because it converts individual case and survey information into statistical data, providing a clearer understanding of both public opinion and the public's impact on sentencing (p. 103).
Thus, the hypothesis posited here would be both supported and contested by existing literature and prior studies. However, an up-to-date study would be particularly useful — especially one that builds on prior studies — given the greater breadth of knowledge now available in the public domain as a result of mass communications, the internet, and television programs rooted in legal procedures, court processes, and criminal investigations. The research proposed here would stand informed by these prior studies while generating new, timely data useful in the immediate and near future.
The variables proposed for study fall into six categories: (1) sexual abuse of a child, (2) murder of a husband, (3) murder charged under the hate crime rule, (4) securities fraud (an Enron-like case scenario), (5) identity theft, and (6) defrauding an elderly citizen of their life savings. Each of the variables is intended to speak to the following dependent variables: (1) gender, (2) sexual orientation, (3) age, and (4) social perceptions and relationships.
"Describes eight scenario dimensions used in the survey"
"Defines independent variables and multivariate regression approach"
Jacobs, J. B., & Potter, K. (2001). Hate crimes: Criminal law and identity politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindstrom, R., & Neumer, P. (2005). Jury trials and plea bargaining. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95(4), 1423+.
McCoy, C. (1993). Politics and plea bargaining: Victims' rights in California. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mirsky, C. L., & Kahn, G. (1997, May/June). No bargain. The American Prospect, 56+.
Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (1997). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Zacharias, F. C. (1998). Justice in plea bargaining. William and Mary Law Review, 39(4), 1121–1189.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.