Essay Sample on Plea Bargaining

Introduction

Plea bargaining has been a controversial concept for several years. Criminal prosecutors and attorneys argue that the practice is an essential component of the criminal justice system because it minimizes congestion of courts that would otherwise derail criminal justice system. However, a significant number of members of the public have argued that the practice fosters injustice and thus should be eliminated. Their arguments are supported by arguments by Guidorizzi (1998) that plea bargaining does not have any just role, and its elimination will ensure effective administration of justice. Therefore, plea bargaining should be eliminated because it fosters injustice and forces innocent persons to plead guilty and accepts less harsh sentences.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Plea bargaining refers to the agreement between the prosecution and the accused of a satisfactory settlement of a case subject to approval by courts (Guidorizzi, 1998). It entails the accused pleading guilty to a lesser charge or to a single count among the numerous charges in a bid to get a lesser punishment. In numerous jurisdictions, plea bargaining is a critical component of the criminal justice system. It is usually used by the prosecutor to negotiate conviction discounts for accused persons who want to avoid protracted trials. Guidorizzi (1998) noted that this allows the accused to avoid lengthy trial or grave charges and also saves witnesses or victims from the stress of testifying or providing evidence. Similarly, defendants and prosecution also use plea bargaining to keep calendars of the court light without necessarily draining resources of the court, potential prosecutors and public defenders that are paid by money from the taxpayers. Indeed, in case every case in the criminal justice system proceeds to trial, the courts would be congested such that they would be closed down.

One of the primary justifications for plea bargaining as stated by Guidorizzi (1998) is that it enables the prosecution to expedite hearings and to minimize the duration of sentencing and that in situations where evidence are believed to be weak, the practice helps to induce a guilty plea.

Another justification for plea bargaining reduces accumulation of cases in the court. Guidorizzi (1998) posited that if every plea bargaining case can proceed to trial, the amount of work, time, and expenses for the prosecution would significantly increase. As such, the practice enables the defense to save much expense on defense expenditures. The accused also benefit from less grave sentence because of pleading guilty and also avoid stressful, emotional and social interference caused because of regular court visits. Moreover, plea bargaining saves the enables accused to avoid the risk of being cleared in courts because the presented evidence is weak. Besides, due to speed with which the rates are being handled, plea bargaining expedites cases and saves the money on lengthy trials, freeing and enabling criminal justice employees to attend to other important issues.

Despite its benefits, plea bargaining has received several criticisms from people across the board. First, it has numerous flaws that consequently cause various justice problems. Principally, an innocent person may be compelled to plead guilty and accept a less grave conviction. This according to Guidorizzi (1998) happens because the defendant fears that he or she may be sentenced by the judge and ends up serving a more severe punishment than the one initially offered. The accused persons may also decide to plead guilty to avoid the cloud of upcoming hearings. Forcing an accused person to take plea violates laws upon which the criminal justice system is founded upon.

Plea bargaining also fosters injustice. Principally, the practice allows the offenders who pose a threat to the society to get away with their crimes as they have agreed on a plea bargain with the prosecution. This according to Guidorizzi (1998) is quite unfair particularly with grave offenses such as murder where the accused pleads guilty to a lesser crime when in a real sense he or she is alleged to have a severe offense. Prosecutors who offer such deals according to Guidorizzi (1998) run the risk of making judges release the accused persons, a situation that would anger the society as justice shall not have been served to the victim.

Principally, the criticism provided for plea bargaining are more convincing. As already stated, plea bargaining involves a gross misunderstanding of the roles of the prosecution in the criminal justice prosecution. Intuitively, there is no provision of the law that requires the prosecution to show leniency or harness in any criminal case. The law only does that by clearly outlining the amount of fine or term sentence that one should serve when found guilty of the crimes following a detailed investigation, trail, and determination of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, plea bargaining should be eliminated because it fosters injustice since punishments are hardly considered based on the gravity of the offense but on the ability of the accused to negotiate and agree on a lesser sentence with the prosecution. Besides, the practice substitutes quantity for quality for administrative efficiency. For a fact, no one is willing to accept the fact that persons who are linked to a grave offense such as murder get away with lesser sentences simply because he or she have pleaded guilty to the charges.

References

Guidorizzi, D. D. (1998). Should we ban plea bargaining: The core concerns of plea bargaining critics. Emory Law Journal, 47, 753.