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.

So, what's the deal?

In today’s society, the issue of social justice seems to weigh heavy on the minds of young scholars and social activists. It seems that in the 21st century, America would have most of its problems solved by now, but unfortunately, there are many areas of our country which are in need of great reform. One of these areas is our court system. Citizens can often times be oblivious to the truth of what takes place in America’s courts, where justice is supposed to prevail. However, this is not always the case. One particular problem within the criminal justice system which hinders accurate endowment of justice is the influence of socioeconomic status in criminal sentencing. Certain factors may blind the jury, or affect the representation of the defendants, providing for unequal treatment and sentencing. One particular case which clearly expresses this issue occurred in West Memphis, Arkansas in 1993, when three teenage boys were wrongfully convicted of murder.
One area of prejudice prevalent in our society today is the issue of socioeconomic status influencing criminal sentencing, including factors such as educational status, employment, family characteristics, income, poverty, social class, and others. This issue can be seen in our court system through two main aspects; the representation given to defendants, and the views held by the jury. I want to point out the injustices of separating criminal defendants by socioeconomic factors, resulting in unfair sentencing.
If a defendant is unable to afford a lawyer, the government provides them with representation. While most people see this as beneficial, it can often times result in the opposite effect. In most cases, a person who cannot afford a lawyer can be classified has having a low income, and possibly a low educational status and social class. Based on this, the defendant is automatically classified. The representation provided to these individuals is not of the same quality as hired lawyers, and in turn, produce less desired results. They work less hard, care less for their defendant, and don’t put the effort in required to prove innocence; they simply meet their quota and call it a day. This unequal treatment of defendants based on their social status results in numerous wrongly convicted individuals.
At the same time, a jury can view a defendant based on their socioeconomic status, giving them a prejudiced and impartial mindset, ultimately resulting in an unfair sentence. In some cases, the defendant may act a certain way based on low educational status of family characteristics which provide the jury with inaccurate views of the defendant, also resulting in false ideas and a wrongfully imposed sentence. This could easily have been true in the case of the “West Memphis Three”, as the jury was filled with inaccurate ideas based on low education and unusual behavior of the defendants.
While socioeconomic status can greatly affect the resulting sentence of a defendant, some critics believe there is only weak correlation between these two factors. This presents a problem in the issue as people seem to be blinded by the presence of prejudice in today’s society. While certain people try to cover up the issue, it will only continue to get worse. Just recently, certain racial issues have started to come about like they have in the past. The major case in the news right now, the case of the Jena Six, deals with a new rise of racial prejudice. Along with that, there have been certain references to an item which represents racial intimidation. In the New York Metropolitan area, there have been at least seven incidents in which nooses have been draped around towns, referencing racial hate.
This rise in prejudice in our society is something which needs to be addressed and taken care of before anything gets worse. Thankfully, after following the case of the West Memphis Three, there has been a turn for the better. This case sums up everything I have been arguing into one example. These three teenage boys, convicted of committing the crime solely based on their gothic appearance, low social status, poor income, and a biased jury, are the victims of the injustice set forth by our criminal justice system. They were found guilty, justified by poor evidence and witnesses, but due to recent breakthroughs in the case, the truth may now have a chance to be revealed. After years of fighting for justice, the defendants have finally been granted a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
While some cases like this are finally beginning to receive justice, other issues are on the rise. Whether old or new, the issue of socioeconomic status in criminal sentencing raises awareness of the injustices which continue to occur today.

3. Implications - Patterns of Distress

Ok, so humans are egoistic and therefore view animal abuse as less wrong then the abuse and murder of human beings. But what does this mean for society? You may be thinking that animals have been treated as lesser beings for a long time and nothing really devastating has happened. Well, if you are harboring this thought, recent psychological research might get you thinking. As mentioned by Dale Bartlett, “[a]nimal cruelty rarely occurs in a vacuum”, and violence to any creature should be a signal of violent tendencies towards human beings too.

Again highlighting the case of Rome, appreciation of animal violence as recreation and spectacle very easily slipped into the cold blooded massacre of early Christians. As history have shown, the satisfaction derived from watching violence inflicted on animals can also be conveniently also provided by watching the torture of human beings.

As researched by Arluke et al (1999), there is some kind of link between animal abuse in a household and the chances of abuse of women and children. Ascione (1998) found that "71% of battered women in a shelter who owned a pet reported that their assaultive male partners had threatened to harm or had actually harmed the family pet" (965). Acts like hunting stirs up worry about its effects on society because, as claimed by Joy Williams, “Hunters kill for play, for entertainment... They kill for the thrill of it, to make an animal ‘theirs.'... The animal becomes the property of the hunter by its death." In the same way, if a human being harbors this mentality, it is not hard to see how such thoughts and desires can lead him/her to inflict the same cruelty to other living creatures, including humans.

According to the social learning theory, "violence, like any other form of behavior, is learned from very early in childhood" (260). Although the link between animal abuse and abuse to humans have not been scientifically proven, research in the field of child psychology and sociology is already suggesting that society creates individuals, implying that violent tendencies can be bred, sustained and justified.

Are we going to sit back and allow our societies to be breeding grounds of violent tendencies? Are we going to say "it is not that bad" to commit gruesome animal torture and abuse, by refusing to explore deeper into our judicial laws?towards animal abuse? Are we going to continue justifying violence based only on a historically and socially constructed foundation of reasoning? Are we going to keep silent until a love one of ours is brutally murdered by a fined animal abuser? I think these are questions we all need to ask ourself, and stop waiting for the blatant link between violence to animals and humans to be proven. Do let me know whether you share my same sentiments about what is at stake here.

Implications of Racial Divides: Racial issues in the Criminal justice System-Implications post

Equality for minorities, specifically black people facing the death penalty will remain a major issue until something is resolved. I feel that measures need to be put in place to protect minorities 14th Amendment rights. Specifically black people's rights to have "equal protection of the laws." One of the projects that covers this issue directly is the Kentucky Racial Act. In the McCleskey v. Kemp case the Supreme Court admitted to the existence of statistical differences between races in capital sentencing. Why is this important? For years, people debated over the "Racial Justice Act of 1990" and whether it should be approved. Ultimately, it ended up being written out of a bill because it the topic was controversial. Huge progress was made later with the "Kentucky Racial Act", however the Supreme Court still declined to recognize these cases of statistical evidence as evidence of discrimination. I think that this is a clear example of civil rights given by the 14th amendment not being honored. What does that say about our American society as a whole?

American's progressive values are put on trial and our role as leaders of the free world are questioned. Other countries have stopped using the death penalty altogether, though we continue to use the death penalty, and now theres evidence that we use it unjustly? Patrick Henry once said "give me liberty or give me death," which meant that he was ready to die for liberty. Have we taken the idea of liberty for granted so much that when we see a violation of it, we do not object? How progressive can American society be if we are still barbaric enough to execute people using the death penalty and then do so unjustly? Measures such as the Racial Justice Act and DNA testing are steps in the right direction but what happens if we never truly see equality on this issue? No, the world will not stop turning, but we will never reach our potential as a society and that will be the greatest failure of all.

Fixing the Plea

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.

Splitting America

So what? What if this inequality against social classes were to continue in our court system? Wouldn’t it be okay? After all, it has continued for decades. The answer is no. If a change does not take place, things will only continue in this direction, which is not towards a state of reform. In the case of socioeconomic status determining criminal sentencing, the implications of the future are very serious, including prejudiced actions and separations in our society. If America begins to realize the social injustice taking place in our court room, as it continues, people are going to become more violent and more prejudice. On the one hand, people often like to rebel against things they disagree with, and in cases such as these, there are many chances for this to occur. As trials progress, onlookers like to wait outside the courtroom with raging comments and actions enforcing their viewpoint. Although these riots do not always get out of hand, we should strive to fix the problem before there is a chance of danger. Rebellions and strikes are things which can get very dangerous very fast, and if people feel drawn to oppose our court system in this way, the result could be devastating. There are many groups joining together which aim to increase awareness of this issue. After the case of the West Memphis Three, the group Arkansa Working to Achieve Revolution united together to fight the case. While this group focuses on peaceful resolutions, others might take it to the extreme. I think we need to avoid any conflict such as these whenever possible, and providing equal justice for all social classes is one way appease the public.
Along with this injustice in our court rooms comes a rise in prejudice. As people begin to realize what’s going on, they will truly see how prejudice still occurs in today’s society. One would hope that this realization might spark a positive reform, but if the opposite occurs, we could end up with a newly realized prejudiced society. What are people to think when they see the court room separating by social class; isn’t it okay for everybody to judge based on prejudices? Personally, I would hate to see America become an even more separated, prejudiced place to live. With growing reform in our court system, we can aim to fight this ominous future.

2. Theory - Thought For Humans By Humans.

As explained in my previous post, the issue that I am exploring is regarding the huge rift between the punishments for the murder of human being and that of pets. I am very aware how many would argue that human beings are different from animals, justifying this stand by comparing intelligence and biblical quotes from genesis. Statements written by influential philosophers, like Saint Augustine (A.D. 354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), argue that animals have no capacity for reason and immortality. Therefore, since we are different, killing a fellow human being cannot be compared to that of an animal. However, if we recognize the anthropocentric nature of the above mentioned justifications and trace their historical development, we would eventually come to realize that why we think so, is very much the construction of how, for centuries, humanity has distinguished itself from nature. Throughout history, humans have continuously justified our actions and morals with philosophical thought that teach us to believe that the abuse and killing of a human being is more 'punishable' then the abuse and murder of an animal.

Our judgments are often socially constructed because they vary across space and time. For example, Cock fighting is an acceptable sport in Southeast Asia but is look down upon by Western societies. In ancient Rome, societies enjoyed the violence and gore of animal tournaments because animals were seen by virtually all Romans as a sub-human part of nature. However, much of today's societies are disgusted by such forms of entertainment. During the Jewish Holocaust, Jews were seen as 3/5 human and hence justified the cruel treatment and murder of almost 6 million Jews. In other words, our treatments towards animals change over time. As done in the past, by identifying animals as lesser beings, judgment passed on their abusers are often less severe. Then, why should our views towards animals and their value remain stagnant today, if almost every other aspect of modern society has seen some form of change?

Therefore, in sum, why I think our society’s judicial sentences for animal abusers are relatively lighter than those for a human murderer, is probably due to (1) how human societies have developed a philosophical hierarchy that places human beings above animals; and (2) that by doing so, justify cruelty and abuse of animals. Such anthropocentric ideologies have become so normalized and ingrained in society, that we become numbed to the weight of violence and cruelty behind some of these animal abuse cases. With such thinking present in judges and jury and law makers, it is hard to set equal punishment for both animal and human abusive killers. My fear is that without a change to our judgment towards animal abuse, how can we possibly justify that we are the morally superior species we claim to be? Therein lies a fundamental contradiction!