Plea bargaining is a process whereby the prosecutor and defense attorney negotiate a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. The court and the defendant must approve of any settlements. Why is this term so important that I just spent two lines defining it? Because with plea bargains, which became clearly authorized in the late 1970s by the U.S. Supreme Court, the courts are able to settle a majority of criminal cases outside of the court rooms, making case loads much less. However these cases being settled by plea bargains are seen by many to be lacking checks and balances. John Langbien, a professor of law and legal history at Yale views the prosecutor as having all the power in the case saying, “he is the investigative officer, the prosecutorial officer, the determinative officer and sentencing officer.” If the power lies in one person’s hands then is justice truly being served? In the case of Joe Martorano, one may beg to differ. Also, are sentences being handed out that are harsher then needed? Sometimes prosecutors overcharge grossly so they can wring heavier plea bargains out of defendants. These questions posed are a scary thought when looking at the statistics with what is dealt in and outside of the courtroom and the amount of power the prosecutor holds.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Plea Bargaining Alleviates Courtroom Load but Adds Pressure to Society's Conscience
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that the procedure of plea bargaining and the role of the prosecutor aren’t discussed enough, so this is going to be fascinating. Plea bargaining, while understandable, doesn’t seem to help justice in my opinion. Someone is getting an alleviated punishment in exchange for someone else’s punishment. I don’t think its right, but I think it makes sense I the grand scheme of things. I don’t think that plea bargaining should necessarily be allowed. Yes, it helps to lighten the load of the court, but the load is the court’s job and they should take on every case. Have you ever noticed how in some cases the true criminals are usually found to be hiding other crimes? If you plead someone out, in some cases, for one crime there is a possibility that those other crimes might never surface. How do they decide who deserves to be pleaded out and which crime is the greater of two evils? There is too much power in the plea bargain.
I agree with d.ashilei that the procedure of plea bargaining and the role of the prosecutor aren’t discussed enough, and I wonder where your heading with this. From my understanding,the idea behind plea bargaining is that a greater justice will happen, and the term "bigger fish to fry" comes to mind. Someone is getting an alleviated punishment in exchange for someone else’s punishment, but usually that person has done something worse, a lot worse. I also think it makes sense in "the grand scheme" of things. Some criminals could not be sentenced without the evidence provided by the person given the plea bargain. These are bad people, but they well sometime "snitch" on each other, in order to save their own back, knowing that the other person will hopefully stay in jail and not be able to get vengeance. Its just a business deal, but you're right that your choosing the lesser of two evil, but what else can you do? Let the real mastermind roam the streets? Some of these guys are good at what they do, and its sickening, but they make it really hard to try them properly sometimes and if you can get a plea bargaining I say get it, and use it.
I seemed to have problems leaving my last comment. Your choice of topic for your blog is interesting, I didn't know that the origins of plea bargaining was so recent. If the purpose of it to start with was to reduce the amount of cases a judge has to overlook, it should be a descent mechanism. However, as you stated that cases have arose where criminals are let out with a much lighter punishment than they 'deserve'. Personally I believe the system was not simply just to reduce their workload but provide an incentive for those who are accomplices in a crime to admit guilt. Even if a 'lighter' punishment is given its still some amount of time that one is losing. I honestly think that punishment is only relative to us because we aren't being subject to it and that we have mixed emotions for what the 'degree' of crime committed is. I'm interested in hearing the arguments against plea bargaining personally because I'm taking a course in game theory next semester. I want to see how this applies in the real world.
Post a Comment