"In the prosecutor's view, there is no such thing as an innocent suspect or defendant."
- Judge Neely's Dissenting Opinion in State of West Virginia v. Rummer
Negotiated justice allows prosecutors to offer a "deal" to defendants in exchange for a plea of guilty. These deals are supposed to help prevent crowded court calendars, overworked court officials, and take criminals off the street faster. Is it ethical? The main focus of this paper is to illustrate the act of plea bargaining and how it can be improved to improve the justice system.
An explicit plea bargain offers a promise of leniency by prosecutor in exchange for a plea of guilty by defendant. An implicit plea bargain offers an implied but not a direct promise of leniency by prosecutor in exchange for a plea of guilty by defendant. (Meyer & Grant, 2003)
There are 5 types of plea bargains. A plea bargain can be offered at any time during trial (Meyer & Grant, 2003). A defense lawyer will advise his client if the offer is in the defendant's best interest. Here the question arises that a public defender who is a lawyer paid by the government, can make an unbiased opinion.
TYPE
POSITIVE ASPECTS
NEGATIVE ASPECTS
Charge bargaining
Reduction in the severity of charges
The prosecutor has knowledge of evidence that might not be allowable in a trial
In cases of murder charges being reduced to aggravated assault, the sentence is limited to a maximum sentence that is less severe.
Sentence bargaining
Promised for lighter or alternative punishment by prosecutor
Defendants are more willing to plead guilty in order to avoid the death penalty or life without parole sentences.
Lighter or alternative sentences may not seem fair to victims.
Count bargaining
Reducing the number of charges
Saves government resources by reducing court time.
The actual number of charges is decreased causing the maximum sentencing to be limited to the remaining charges
(Meyer & Grant, 2003)
In the criminal justice system, a judge is seated to oversee trials to ensure that civil rights of defendants are respected. The Constitution of the United States demands that all trials are conducted fairly. The impartial moderator, the judge, is positioned between the prosecution and the defense teams (LawMall, 2007). Sentencing Guidelines, issued by the federal government, moved discretionary decisions from the judge to the prosecutor (Workman, 2002).
In a plea bargain, "judges no longer get to judge matters to determine whether the prosecutor is overzealous, acting unlawfully, or has an insufficient case" (Workman, 2002, para. 36).
90 % of criminal cases end in a plea agreement (LawMall, 2007). Is it not a prosecutor's responsibility to prosecute? Do defense attorneys no longer defend, but merely act as well-paid negotiators of plea bargains?
The disposition of criminal charges by agreement has political rewards. Prosecutors with high conviction rates are favored by political parties. Ambitious prosecutors often seek a position as judge. Political endorsements go to those with the highest conviction rates, paying no attention as to how those convictions were gained.
Defendants are not privy to the evidence presented to a Grand Jury. The prosecutor knows what evidence is and how much evidence has been gathered. The defendant and the defense attorney are not allowed to see that evidence until the case enters the phase of discovery. Lacking this information, can a defense attorney make a fair evaluation of the offer presented? Under these circumstances, the situation can be compared to playing poker. Should the defendant call the prospector's bluff? It is a high stakes game with an individual's freedom and liberty at stake.
The U.S. Supreme court calls this method of disposition a valid form of justice (Meyer & Grant, 2003). The Supreme Court believes that prosecutors are better able than jurors to ascertain guilt because of their access to consider evidence that might be excluded from trials.
In 1982, the Supreme Court reviewed the case of The United States v. Goodwin and ruled that prosecutors may file additional charges against defendants if the defendant rejects a plea bargains that allows for fewer charges. Extra charges can include repeat offender violations that could send a person to prison for an extra amount of time. The question that arises here is how can a prosecutor choose to ignore a federal law made especially to guard the public from repeat offenders?
Has a thirst for convictions made punishment a secondary concern in the judicial system?
In 1996, it was reported that 91% of all felony convictions in the state courts were predisposed of through guilty pleas (Meyer & Grant, 2003). This means that 91% of the convicted felons in the United States served lesser sentences.
Whether the public supports or shuns the idea of plea bargains, the justice system allows them to be firmly embedded in the American Justice System. The public seems to be divided on the issue.
Many people agree with The Supreme Court believing that plea bargains protect the public from accused persons who are likely to continue criminal conduct during their pretrial release. Defenders of plea bargains believe that negotiations are offered only in cases when a conviction at trial is improbable. They argue that agreements ensure some form of penalty for those defendants.
Supporters point out that resources are scarce. Plea bargaining saves resources. Members of the courtroom work group concur with those claims. In cases where negotiations include the defendant testifying against other offenders, supporters say this relieves the public of criminals who otherwise never get caught.
Sometimes victims, too, sometimes prefer plea bargains. Without a trial, they do not
testify in court. These victims are guaranteed that justice will be served and believe this is better than taking a chance of an acquittal and the resulting freedom for the offender.
People who are against plea bargains argue that plea offenders escape legislated punishment. The practice promotes over-charging by prosecutors so they can reduce the charges.
The conclusion to the issue of plea bargains is to take away some of the power of the prosecutors and put it back in the hands of the judges. The solution is simple; judges should preside over the negotiations.
REFERENCES
LawMall. (2007). Plea-Bargaining Analysis in Dissenting Opinion in State of West Virginia v. Rummer. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://www.lawmall.com/pleabarg/rummer.html
Meyer, J.F., & Grant, D.R. (2003). The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Workman C. J., (2002). Concurring Opinion. Lawmall. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.lawmall.com/pleabarg/rummer.html