This paper argues that plea bargaining in criminal cases does not benefit defendants, victims, or society. The author contends that while plea bargains reduce trial time and effort, they prioritize efficiency over justice and accountability. The paper defines plea bargaining and its three negotiation types (charge, sentence, and fact bargaining), then demonstrates how innocent defendants may be coerced into guilty pleas, how victims are denied justice, and how society suffers when offenders receive reduced sentences without adequate rehabilitation or deterrence. The analysis concludes that plea bargaining undermines the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and perpetuates cycles of crime.
Before examining why plea bargaining fails defendants, victims, and society, it is necessary to understand what a plea bargain is and how it functions within the criminal justice system. A plea bargain is an agreement made in a criminal case when the prosecutor offers the defendant a bargain for a lesser charge if the defendant pleads guilty to his or her criminal charge. Plea bargains prevent the risk of defendant conviction at trial and suffering harsher sentences; however, they also carry risks and downfalls that must be considered before a defendant agrees to such an arrangement. Plea bargaining most often occurs before trial, but in many jurisdictions can still occur anytime before a verdict is rendered, or in the event of a "hung jury" rather than proceeding to another trial.
Plea bargains involve three areas of negotiation: charge bargaining, sentence bargaining, and fact bargaining. Charge bargaining is a negotiation regarding specific charges that the defendant would face at trial. This bargain involves the defendant rendering a guilty plea for his or her crime(s) in exchange for having the higher charge dismissed. An example of charge bargaining is when a defendant who faced first-degree murder charges pleads guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter. Sentence bargaining occurs when the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the stated charge in exchange for a lighter sentence. The defendant receives a reduced sentence and avoids having to contest the prosecution in court. Fact bargaining is the least commonly used negotiation type. It involves the defendant admitting to specific facts while the prosecution agrees not to introduce certain facts into evidence during trial. All three types of plea bargains fundamentally involve the same outcome: the defendant pleads guilty to his or her crime(s) in exchange for a lesser sentence and foregoes a trial.
Plea bargains are among the most controversial practices in the criminal justice process. They occur in more than 90 percent of criminal convictions, meaning that fewer than 10 percent of cases proceed to trial. These agreements are made between the prosecutor and the defendant but do not require acceptance by the judge. The judge receives the plea bargain as a recommendation from the prosecution and must decide whether to accept or deny the agreement. A significant disadvantage for the defendant is that if the judge rejects the agreement, the defendant must go to trial; because the defendant signed a plea agreement admitting guilt, an appeal is later impossible. Once a judge denies a plea bargain, the defendant has virtually no chance in court because he or she has already admitted to committing the crime(s) and must face whatever sentence the court imposes.
Many critics argue that police conduct inadequate investigations because of plea bargaining, and that attorneys do not take sufficient time to prepare cases properly because they prefer to reach a plea agreement. The parties involved seem to prioritize making a deal for convenience and time savings rather than ensuring that guilty defendants face appropriate legal consequences for their crimes.
Plea bargains are generally not beneficial to defendants. Innocent people often agree to plea bargains because of the fear that they will face a guilty verdict and conviction if taken to trial. The helplessness felt by an innocent person who agrees to a punishment when they did not commit the crime—out of fear that they might face worse punishment if unable to prove their innocence at trial—reveals a fundamental injustice. Plea bargains completely eliminate any chance the defendant might have had to be acquitted. The defendant must accept whatever punishment the prosecution offers. Many defendants view plea bargains as unfair because prosecutors offer different deals to different defendants. Some defendants receive substantially better plea bargains than others, raising serious questions about how justice is truly served when prosecutors distribute deals primarily to avoid the effort of preparing and presenting a case in court.
Another significant harm lies in the pressure defendants face to accept plea agreements. Many defendants essentially feel forced into plea bargains by the prosecution. The defendant perceives that he or she must waive the constitutional right to a fair trial before a jury because the prosecution has created fear about trial outcomes. Prosecutors often threaten defendants that if they do not accept the offered plea bargain, the prosecution will recommend and push for the most severe sentence possible. Prosecutors tell defendants that if they plead guilty and accept the bargain, the prosecution will demonstrate that they are remorseful for their crimes. Many defendants describe a plea as a threat made by prosecutors that forces them into the agreement. When a public defender represents a defendant, the attorney is also more likely to push for a plea bargain rather than proceed to trial because of the overwhelming caseload of other clients. A plea deal saves public defenders time and allows them to move forward to their next client more rapidly. This means that either the defendant receives an unfair plea deal, or if the defendant obtains a good deal, victims and society are punished because the defendant is not adequately sentenced for the crimes committed. Criminal defendants should face the consequences for their crimes rather than being allowed to escape those consequences through a plea deal.
Plea bargains benefit neither victims nor society because the sentence does not match the crime committed by the defendant. It is crucial that defendants serve their sentences fully so that they can hopefully experience remorse for their crimes and acquire rehabilitation to prevent future offenses. When a crime is committed, victims deserve to see justice served. As one source notes, "There is no justice for the victim or the family of the victim unless a jury convicts the criminal on the highest possible charges" (Rein, 2011). Society needs people to behave positively to maintain a pleasant environment. Individuals who commit crimes negatively affect society, which is why it is essential that defendants learn from their mistakes before being released back into society. Otherwise, they are likely to continue committing crimes and society will continue suffering negative effects.
Plea bargains are also problematic when made with defendants in exchange for information about hostages or the locations of murder victims. This arrangement means that criminals are released back into society earlier than appropriate, and victims or their families are denied justice for the crimes committed. Offering plea bargains in exchange for information or testimony creates incentives for defendants to provide false information or false testimony to obtain a reduced sentence. Making deals with criminals is inherently risky, and regardless of whether they uphold their part of the agreement, they still deserve to face consequences for the crimes they committed. They do not deserve a lighter sentence for providing information that they should provide regardless.
Numerous cons of plea bargaining exist, beginning with the fact that it contradicts the constitutional right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Although some argue that defendants have the right to choose trial over a plea bargain, prosecutors often force defendants into plea bargains through threats, telling them they have no chance in court and that if they demand a trial, the prosecution will ensure they receive the most severe sentence possible. Plea bargains often fail to benefit defendants, and when they do, it comes at the cost of defendants not facing consequences they should face for their crimes. This also negatively affects victims and society. Victims witness the defendant escape the justice that crime deserves. It is unfair for victims to suffer while watching a defendant avoid the consequences of a misdeed. Society is affected because the criminal is returned to a community where he or she will likely continue committing crimes, believing they can escape accountability.
Plea bargaining represents a fundamental failure of the criminal justice system to serve the interests of defendants, victims, or society. While the practice may save time and resources for prosecutors and courts, it does so at the expense of justice, constitutional rights, and public safety. Innocent defendants are coerced into guilty pleas; victims are denied justice; society is endangered by offenders released without adequate rehabilitation or deterrence. These are the reasons why plea bargaining a case instead of taking it to court does not benefit the defendant, victim, or society. The criminal justice system must prioritize genuine justice and accountability over administrative convenience.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.