When preparing for this blog, I was having a hard time coming up with something to intrigue y’all and to be honest, persuade y’all into seeing that the plea bargains need to be fixed, there needs to be more checks and balances. Well, I just so happen to come across this article that I found mighty interesting. Have you ever had a friend who has withheld information from you about some incident because they didn’t want to hurt your feelings? From experience I would have to say they did this because they knew that in some way you would be disappointed. WELL it just so happens that the Department of Justice is trying to be “that” friend. The Department of Justice has asked the federal judiciary to eliminate public Internet access to plea agreements in criminal case files and all related docket notations. Okay so what does that mean right? They are trying to take the easy access away from the public…what are you trying to hide? Why would the Department of Justice be trying to do this? They claim it is for protecting witnesses and so to eliminate retaliation, intimidation and harassment. But don’t the witnesses already fear those things when the case is handled inside the court room? My fear is that the prosecutors are trying to make it so we the people will not become disappointed with the outcome of the way they are handling sentencing these criminals. With approximately 90% of our criminal court cases being held outside of the court room, it only seems right to have the information of these cases available to the people not only through the courthouse, but also through the internet. Albert Alschuler , a professor of law and criminology at the University of Chicago, believes that the plea bargains keeps the truth from coming out, making it so the defense does not get to give their side of the story. He sees one way in fixing the system of plea bargaining is to “simplify our trial procedures, and thereby make trials more available to defendants who want them.” Making the trial procedures more available to the defendants would alleviate some of the pressure from the innocent in taking plea bargains because of the time they would have to spend in jail before they were able to be tried. Case in point is Robert H. (unidentified man) , who after serving six months in jail was told that if he pleaded guilty the prosecutor would say his sentence was the six months of jail time he already served or he would have to wait at least a year until his trial. Robert took the plea bargain. It was not until later did the police find that they had mistaken him for someone else and he should have never been arrested in the first place. What a scary thought!! Was he poorly represented?! Why plead guilty if you are not?! Are these not the reasons why we SHOULD have access to these files?! All the more reasons for the American public to be educated!!
Another look into the plea bargains faults is through the sentencing of the so called “guilty”. Norm Pattis believes that there should be a public advocate in on the process of plea bargaining. Pattis voices that the when the state [Connecticut] constitution was amended, allowing the victim to be heard at all critical stages of the hearing, the prosecutors have changed their ways, instead of fighting for society, they are fighting for the victim. Pattis says, “If we are going to let victims muck up the proceedings and hold prosecutors, and now judges, hostage, then I say appoint a public advocate.” This is only one example of the influence the prosecutor might have when dealing with a plea bargain. The point of these cases being held outside of the court room is to speed up our judicial process. But why are we trying to sprint through a marathon? Our court system is being judged by the people as having flaws, but most importantly flaws in an area that is taking care of 90% of our criminal cases. With the case loads being overwhelmed outside of the court rooms, would it hurt to try and simplify our trial process or simply adding a public advocate? Justice is supposed to be blind, but it seems that our justice system currently has on blinders.
7 comments:
Really interesting point to be made on the plea bargaining system. It is scary to think about how someone will take a guilty plea just so that the person can be released instead of trying to prove their innocence because it would take to long. I also find it amazing how 'approximately 90% of our criminal court cases' being dealt with outside of the courtroom. I also feel though that it is important to protect certain witnesses since I think organized crime and other people will go after certain witnesses if they are not protected from them. Hopefully the plea bargaining system can be corrected and the trial system can become faster so that people can recieve a fair trial.
I definitely understand your argument and the points that you present. You define relationships well and present examples that help define your argument. In the beginning you tend to use more of a conversational tone, which is good because it attracts the reader. This tone, however, seems to switch to one that is more scholarly as you progress in your post. I think it might be more helpful to your reader if you kept a uniform tone throughout your discussion. However, overall, you did a good job in explaining the implications of your topic!
It seems like you intended your introduction to be conversational in many respects in that you want to speak in lament's terms about an issue so complicated. I think this is an important thing to do since your topic is a little more difficult to understand, especially since it has so many implications within it; however, as your blog goes on, your voice changes dramatically, maybe even a little too drastically. Throughout your blog your tone gets more and more academic in comparison to the introduction. You did go a good job explaining what point you're trying to get across.
I think that this is well put together in general with very little grammatical errors, etc. but the conversational voice you use initially, though effective in drawing in a reader, is changed so quickly that understanding what follows initially becomes difficult. If you have time, if would be helpful to revamp it so that there is a smoother transition between these two tones of voice.
Also - you found some shocking examples of injustice that involved plea bargaining - but it isn't clear how they are exactly the FAULT of the practice of plea bargaining. The second example for instance in one in which the accused was really failed by the police and especially his lawyer (for neglecting to have a stink about how long he was sitting in jail without a trail and for obviously neglecting to advise him to get a trail rather than plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit). In fact, in this case if the prosecutor wasn't at fault for how long this wait was, he actually did him a favor by offering up the 6th months he'd already served as a plea bargain.
Great topic and great post.
However there are a couple of things which I think could be changed to make it slightly better.
First, I understand the conversational tone at the beginning of the post. I really do. However, it is so dramatically different from the rest of the post that it comes across as awkward. You can be converational without being precise and formal.
Just take for instance these comments. They're much more conversational than the blog entries themselves, yet they're not filled with southern drawl and regional slang. But they do get the point across, and in a much more inviting tone. Then you can shift later on to the formal tone which will not look so different when juxtaposed with the conversational one.
Secondly, I think you should consider revising this statement so that it is a bit easier of a read "The Department of Justice has asked the federal judiciary to eliminate public Internet access to plea agreements in criminal case files and all related docket notations"
Also, I'm still a bit unclear as to what a public actually is. I can only assume that we need it based on what you have said, but I don't know what a public advocate does or how one could be beneficial to the expediency of trials.
90%? That's how many of our cases are finalized by plea bargaining? That is unheard of. Okay, apprently it's not unheard of in America. I think plea bargaining is a method to expedite trials, as you stated; however, all it serves to do is hinder some people from trying for innocence, asuming that they are indeed innocent. This bothers me because some would say that plea bargianing is great if the guilty are going to admit they've been wrong and hurry up and go to jail. Conversely, it's horrible because a lot of innocent people are persuaded, moreso than the actual guilty, to plead out by lawyers. This accounts for the fact that the innocent don't ususally want to be crucified in a court room and that happens in many cases. Still, I'd never plea bargain if I was an innocent.
Personally, I think its hard to believe that the Department of Justice is simply doing this to satisfy the public. I agree that sometime criminals get off easier through the use of plea bargaining, but isn't this subjective in the first place? You can potentially argue that plea bargaining eliminates the risk of jury discrepancies when deciding on conviction and punishment. But you made an interesting point when you say that the truth isn't being heard. It seems as though the whole court system serves this purpose, and plea bargaining simply infringes on defendant's right to tell their side of the story. I think Robert H.'s case was probably an error other than plea bargaining. It was there to offer him a lighter sentence that he would have served if he wasn't found innocent (when in fact he was). The only reason I'm probably in favor of plea bargaining is that court cases are subject to media, jury bias, and other external factors that could be unfair for the defendant.
Post a Comment