Plea Bargain

Introduction

The plea bargain process involves the defendant agreeing to a lesser sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. The deal may be reached a short moment after the arrest of defendant and before the filing of criminal charges. The major benefit for the plea bargain is that the defendant is given a lesser sentence than possible through the trial.  The police officer involved in investigation and the victim may favor the plea bargain instead of the possibility of having no justice through the courts. The plea bargain may lead to failure to scrutinize evidence and an innocent defendant may end up being punished.

The process

Plea bargain is where a defendant enters into an agreement with prosecutors to plead guilty to part or all of the charges and in return, he gets a lenient sentence. In the process, the prosecutor agrees to a lesser punishment for the defendant through a reduction of charges severity or number (Abel, 2016).  The agreement may also involve a recommendation for the defendant to given lesser sentences.  In some instances, the prosecutor may need the defendant to offer more than just pleading guilty.  The prosecutor may offer a favorable plea bargain when a defendant agrees to be a witness for the state and testify against some other defendants (Abel, 2016). The process may also involve the judge, where together with the prosecutor they may pre-determine the sentence to be given to the defendant after accepting the plea bargains.  The role of the judge in many jurisdictions is limited.  For courthouse in many jurisdictions, plea bargain may be given at any phase of criminal justice process.  The agreement can be reached a short moment after the arrest of defendant and before the filing of criminal charges (Abel, 2016).

Plea bargains are offered for various reason  which include to reduce the number of court cases , prosecutors’ may need to put their focus on some cases and the process may save time and resources for the defendant. At times, it is easier for a plea bargain to be offered by the prosecutor than taking cases in court, given that the system is normally overcrowded.  The aim is to minimize the burden placed on the court system (Batra, 2015).  Prosecutors are able to pay focus on greater cases and offering such plea bargain especially if the defendant is a first time offender or the cases involves lesser charges. The prosecutors can make their schedule less strained. The trial process cost much money and consumes significant amount of time, so the plea bargain makes the process to move quickly so that defendant can go on with their activities. Negotiations in plea bargain may result in an agreement as the jury goes back to the courtroom to give the judgment.  If the trail leads to a hung jury, where the judges are not able to reach a unanimous decision needed, the defender and the prosecutor may negotiate a deal instead of going through the trail again (Batra, 2015).  Such deals at times are reached after the conviction of the defendant and the case has been appealed thus saving time and money.

The law enforcement officers who took part in investigating a crime can support a plea bargain when the final verdict by the court is not in their favor. They may want the entire legal process to be complete quickly. The case present to the prosecutor can be weak so that the court asserts the need for proper evidence or even witnesses.  The officer doing the investigation may not want to provide even the slightest chance that the defendant will be acquitted  but aims at ensuring that he or she is punished (Abel, 2016). The officer favors the plea bargain because there may be an opportunity for the defendant to be punished even when evidence against them is not sufficient.  The police may also oppose the plea bargain considering that they risk their lives investigating and putting into custody the defendants only for the prosecutors to throw away the cases that could have gone through a fair trial (Abel, 2016).  The police may feel that their longtime work was not meaningful.  The police may fear that frustration from such deals can lead fewer arrests due to their concerns regarding plea bargaining.  They fear that they will finally become less dedicated or conscious in the streets with the possibility that their work will lead to a naught.  The level of respect the police is given is likely to evaporate when the prosecutors and the defendant have the case and reach a deal (Abel, 2016).  Hence, his actions become questionable to the public and tactical decisions face increased criticism.

 The victims support for plea bargain may be due to some circumstance such as being very elderly or too young so that they do not want to be involved in the trial rigors. They may not want to remain in the presence of the defendant due and relive the victimization horrors. For instances, abuse and rape cases the victim may not have the courage to undergo the cross-examination. In other instances, the witnesses may not be cooperative, available or reliable which is likely to make the testimony not credible (Arns, 2015).  In addition, the negotiated punishment or settlement offers more justice than the uncertainty related with judicial process which whose judgment may be different from what the victims prefers.  On the other hand, the victim may oppose the plea bargain due to the feeling that the prosecutor is too lenient whey he or she agrees to a given sentence.  The victim may desire to asset his or her rights to oppose any plea agreement that is binding (Arns, 2015).  This may arise from the feeling that the victim will be denied their right to take part in the system by supporting the plea.  The victim’s objection may also result from need to raise concerns that the prosecutor wants a quick victory while ignoring their plight.  The sentence given to the defendant may be too lenient so that it is just a resemblance to the deserved justice. The victim may also oppose the process if they are denied the right to oppose any deal between the prosecutor and the accused (Arns, 2015).

The re-definition of the defendant’s criminal demeanor may results to a different perspective by the society related to the plea bargain. This result to the defendants having an offense that faces less stigmatization in their records.  The relationship with the family and families may change as a result. At times, those defendants who have been imprisoned for offenses that are stigmatizing are likely to face higher risk of harm in the prison compared to when they have been sentenced for a minor offense (Berger, 2014)e.  The defendants can also save on the costs associated with the case especially the attorney’s fee after the plea bargain if they have been represented by a private lawyer.  The trial of a case almost always consumes more money and time than negotiating and dealing with a plea bargain.  The defense counsel will normally charge a large amount of the fee if defendant’s case is taken to trial.   Moreover, the defendants in custody whose right to bail was rejected or could not afford to pay the bail may move of almost immediately after the judge has accepted the plea (Berger, 2014). The defendant may also move out or be on probation while not being sentenced to service obligation in the community depending on the nature of the offense committed.

The provision of plea bargain means that the case against the defendant will not go through trial and hence, the opportunity to scrutinize the evidence in the court will be lost.  The lack of scrutiny means that there will be suppression of evidence while relying on the witness.  The witness credibility may be questionable where the impeachment evidence is not revealed. The court may fail to examine whether the evidence presented and the witness testimony are biased (Petegorsky, 2012). This may lead to a case where an innocent person is forced to accept to plead guilty rather than face the uncertain outcome of the court trial even where the evidence is not enough to convict him. The failure to present exculpatory evidence means that the innocence of a defendant cannot be established (Petegorsky, 2012). An innocent person may be forced into bargain plea for the fear of being convicted for a higher sentence that the one reached through a bargain.

Conclusion

The plea bargain may benefit the defendant and the victim, in that the defendant may receive lesser sentence while the victim will be assured of some form of justice. The officer favors the plea bargain because there may be an opportunity for the defendant to be punished even when evidence against them is not sufficient. The lack of scrutiny may lead to suppression of evidence while relying on the witness whose credibility is not ascertained.

Reference

Batra, R. R. (2015). Judicial Participation in Plea Bargaining: A Dispute Resolution Perspective. Ohio St. LJ, 76, 565.

Abel, J. (2016). Cops and Pleas: Police Officers' Influence on Plea Bargaining. Yale LJ, 126, 1730.

 

Arns, K. (2015). Not All Plea Breaches Are Equal: Examining Heredia's Extension of Implicit Breach Analysis. Nw. UL Rev., 110, 617.

 

Petegorsky, M. N. (2012). Plea Bargaining in the Dark: The Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Brady Evidence During Plea Bargaining. Fordham L. Rev., 81, 3599.

 

Berger, T. A. (2014). After Frye and Lafler: The Constitutional Right to Defense Counsel Who Plea Bargains. Am. J. Trial Advoc., 38, 121.