The TRUTH Behind the Plea

Throughout United States history plea bargaining has been a controversial issue. Plea bargaining is used to settle 95% of criminal cases in the U.S. Court System. Though seen by many as a means of efficiency, others see it as an imbalance of checks and balances within our system. Specifically, it is sometimes viewed as an injustice on the part of the prosecutor. When both members of the court system and the defendant uphold their responsibility toward the honesty of the case, the plea bargaining process can be a highly successful and expedient one.

Some believe that the high percent of cases being dealt with by plea bargains is due to the time it takes to go to trial, the costs, harsh verdicts, etc. The plea bargaining system is used within our judicial system to create efficiency and has been recognized as an essential component of the administrative justice. When asked if plea bargaining was essential to our justice system, Chief Judge, Robert J. Conrad, Jr., stated, “Trials are time consuming, so are appeals. It would be difficult if not imporrible to try every case that was charged.” There has been some speculation on whether or not some judges attempt to force defense attorneys toward the acceptance of a plea bargain, threatening longer sentences if the case comes to trial. There have also been cases where a defendant pleaded guilty because of the lengthy wait before the trial, example Robert H. The purpose of the plea bargaining arrangement is to filter out those who readily admit their guilt, thus skipping the processing of reaching a verdict and moving directly to sentencing. Plea bargains are obviously efficient. Are they always handled fairly, though?

The prosecutor is seen as a representative of the law and must do his part to see that justice is served. However, some argue that prosecutors upset the system of checks and balances. John Langbien, a professor of law and legal history at Yale Law School, describes the prosecutor in a plea bargain as, “a single officer, the prosecutor, now in charge of investigating bringing formal charges, evaluating that evidence, (deciding) whether or not in his or her judgment you’re guilty or not and then basically sentencing you.” When seen in this light one might conclude that most of the power remains in the prosecutor’s hands. The only “check” might appear to be the defendant’s consent. However, when looking at the whole process one might beg to differ. Conrad states, “the prosecutor has substantial power in determining what charges to bring and what offers to make. “ He continues, “the defendant has the power to exercise his constitutional right to trial by a jury of his peers, to have counsel, to call and cross examine witnesses, to exercise his right not to testify, and to force the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the unanimous satisfaction of all 12 jurors."

Plea bargaining is intended to bring the prosecution and the defense together to negotiate a mutally satisfying resolution of the case. The court and the defendant must approve of any settlements. The Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that, “Prosecutors will now have to specifically spell our what is expected of both parties in a cooperation agreement.” Also in the case of the United States vs. Williams, Justice Sutherland gave his opinion on the roles of the federal prosecutor very thoroughly. Although this process might be widely agreed upon, is the defendant getting the punishment he or she deserves? Speculation exists of what is happening behind closed doors. . John Kavanaugh views the plea bargaining process as one that “promises gentle treatment”, and to refuse would mean that the defendant would be placed in an exhausted court system. This speculation may be fueled by the Department of Justice’s recent actions to rid internet access to plea agreements in criminal cases. The Department’s claim is that this offers protection for the witnesses. With the Department of Justice trying to close its doors even further on the public, it leaves room for wonderment. Some believe that there should be a public representative present when the plea agreement is hammered out, and that the public should be allowed to see how the justice system is handling the law breakers of our society. WWhy, some would argue, does there need to be a public representative if the prosecutor is supposed to represent the U.S. courts? For some cases like, Michael J. Kooper , Joe Mortorano and Michael J. Fortier one may s pleas bargaining seems to have worked in their favor. Their punishment may be seen as light for “ratting” out their accomplices. One might question what lesson was learned by such action. However, for cases like Adam Kidan, leads others to confess, allowing the process of justice to speed toward conclusion, freeing up our court rooms to focus on trials less straight forward, such as in the case of the falsely accused..

The United States Justice System has paved the way to a fair and just system. Although one might view the plea bargaining process with the checks and balances misplaced, when looking at the overall workings of the courts, they seem present. When looking at a plea agreement form, one is able to see the knowledge the defendant has when giving his/her plea of guilt. We, the people of the United States, have elected the officials in the justice system to place judgment. By doing so, we have placed our trust within the justice systems rules, which are clearly defined as just. It is shown that only through the power of the people's honesty, will the process of plea bargaining be successful and in return be an efficient and expedient tool for our justice department.