Plea Bargaining in the U.S. Justice System: Pros and Cons

Introduction: The Challenge of Trial by Jury

The American justice system promises everyone the right to a fair trial by a jury of peers. While the idea is sound in theory, many factors make it inconvenient in practice. A trial by jury is often time-consuming and costly to taxpayers. Prosecutors must have adequate time to prepare a case, and if the defendant cannot afford a defense attorney, the public defender's office will provide one at taxpayer 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 has caused court dockets to become increasingly overcrowded (Fisher, 2003). Jury selection is another complicating factor, as many people attempt to avoid serving on a jury. One of the most common solutions to this judicial overload is the plea bargain system.

What Is a Plea Bargain?

Before one can understand the benefits and problems of the plea bargain system, it is necessary to first understand what it is and how it works.

A plea bargain 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 compiled, along with reports from any other agencies or witnesses involved. Once that information is compiled, the prosecutor determines whether or not to proceed with the case.

If the prosecutor believes the evidence will not hold up in court, he or she may decide not to proceed and the charges are dropped. If, however, the prosecutor believes there is sufficient evidence, a trial date is set. At this point — or at any other time throughout the process — the prosecutor may decide to offer a plea bargain. Similarly, the defense attorney has the ability to approach the prosecutor and propose that the defendant enter a plea bargain (Carney, 1999).

A plea bargain means that the defendant will plead guilty without going through a trial, and in exchange for that guilty plea, a sentence is agreed upon. Plea bargains usually involve the defendant pleading guilty to a lesser charge than the original charge. For example, a defendant accused of murder might enter a plea bargain and plead guilty to manslaughter instead.

Plea bargaining can also cross the line from felony to misdemeanor. A defendant accused of a felony may, by agreement of both parties, plead guilty to a misdemeanor, thereby avoiding a felony conviction — an outcome that can be life-altering (Fisher, 2003).

History of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining came into existence shortly after the founding of the nation; however, it did not gain widespread popularity until late in the twentieth century. In recent 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 strength heading into a trial. They have been likened to a primordial instinct within the prosecutorial mindset (Fisher, 2003).

The origins of the plea bargain system can be traced to Middlesex County's middle-tier courts. Between 1787 and 1849, plea bargains were available and used, but they were considered a rarity rather than the norm. During those years, two-thirds of accepted plea bargains arose from alcohol-related charges.

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 of between two and six pounds, plus whatever costs were assessed by the prosecutor (Fisher, 2003).

However, in 1852, the Massachusetts legislature removed the prosecution's power to nolle prosequi — that is, to drop charges — 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. As a result, the number of clear plea bargains dropped dramatically, and the number of trials increased correspondingly (Fisher, 2003).

Benefits of the Plea Bargain System

There are numerous benefits to using the plea bargain system. The first and most important benefit from a prosecutor's standpoint is that it provides an automatic conviction. The prosecution does not have to worry about whether the evidence will withstand scrutiny, whether witnesses will appear credible, or how jury members will react. Jurors are human and subject to emotion and error. A prosecutor going to trial must always contend with the possibility that a jury will sympathize with the defendant and return an acquittal, even when convinced of guilt.

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-funded prosecution, but also the expense of hiring expert witnesses and covering their accommodations during the trial. The costs of legal investigations are borne by state and federal taxpayers and can be considerable.

According to legal scholars, the morality and practicality of plea bargaining remain subjects of ongoing academic debate, yet the efficiency gains it offers the justice system are widely acknowledged. On balance, the benefits of the plea bargain system significantly outweigh the negative elements, though those negatives deserve careful consideration.