It is because individuals are not getting the justice they deserve.I agree that plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the united states criminal justice system. In the position that people deserve a right to a free trial, that i feel compelled to affirm todays resolution resolved Plea bargaining should be abolished because its unfair, defendants lose some of their rights like the right to trial by jury, plea bargaining allows criminals to defeat justice, thus diminishing the public's respect for the criminal justice process. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), in 2003 there were 75,573 cases disposed of in federal district court by trial or plea. Of these, about 95 percent were disposed of by a guilty plea Plea Bargaining violates our original justice system and makes prosecutors tyrants. …show more content…
Prosecutors have a one sided relationship and pressure defendants into pleading guilty regardless. Often times, prosecutors meet in secret to dictate the negotiations. What this does is it takes the power of of judges hands and compromising the liberty of the American people. Over 20% of the 2 million in prison were wrongfully convicted as they were forced to plead guilty by their prosecutor. If the individual refuses to plead guilty the prosecutor charges him or her a more harsh punishment. For example, a drug addict who refused a 10 year jail plea went to court and was charged with life in prison without parole. The prosecutor was asked if he thought this action was just and he responded with, "no comment" Thus, plea bargaining out to be
Plea bargaining precludes justice from being achieved, where the consent to less severe sentences are given in favour of time and money. The case of R v Rogerson and McNamara, demonstrates the advantages of hiring highly trained legal personnel, which inevitably contributed to their lesser sentence. Thus, making it more difficult for offenders to be convicted.
The due process model points out the human error factor in evidence gathering and places emphasis on the adversarial trial process by which the prosecution has to prove the accused party is guilty (Aviram, 2011). This due process model is seen in many popular culture television shows in America today like Law & Order and CSI, however it is not an accurate representation of the criminal justice system as a whole. Bargaining, or making a plea deal with the prosecution is a trait emphasized in the crime control model but it is also common practice in the American criminal justice system (Aviram, 2011). While the due process model has several positive aspects it seems to work too well in the United States; as of 2008 the U.S. had 2.3 million people incarcerated which indicates the due process model is working as described but it is also unprepared to account for the social consequences of the existing prison system that is perpetuated by guilty verdicts ("Criminal Justice Fact Sheet", 2016). The due process model, although slower, gives more rights to the defendant and ensures the legal system works toward a resolution in the fairest way possible. Unlike the crime control model, due process works and works without infringing upon the constitution rights of the
A plea bargain is compliance between a prosecutor and defendant in which the accused offender agrees to plead guilty in return for some compromise from the prosecutor. The New Jim Crow, explains how most Americans have no clue on how common it is for people to be prosecuted without proper legal representation and are sentenced to jail when innocent out of fear. Tens of thousands of poor people go to jail every year without ever talking to a lawyer that could possibly help them. Over four decades ago, the American Supreme Court ruled that low-income people who are accused of serious crimes are entitled to council, but thousands of people are processed through America’s courts annually with a low resource lawyer, or no lawyer at all. Sometimes
...instead of 25 years if they pleaded guilty. (Wan 37) In addition, money can become a reason for defense attorney to encourage pleading guilty. Private defense attorney may want to spend more effort in cases where they have more possibility of winning and thus getting more money, and public defenders find pleading guilty an effective way to move through cases quicker. (Mohr 6) For prosecutors, “guilty pleas avoided ‘onerous and protracted’ trials whose outcomes – ‘losing’ or ‘having to oppose an appeal to the higher courts’ – were both undesirable.” (Smith 134) Finally for judges, plea bargain reduces their caseload, and elevates their reputation indirectly because accepting a plea bargaining also includes waiver of appeal to higher courts. (Mohr 6)
Over 80 million Americans alive today have been called to jury duty at some point in their lives (Henley 5). Out of these 80 million individuals, roughly 30% (or 24 million) have been eliminated from the jury selection process due to the use of peremptory challenges (5). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a peremptory challenge is a challenge that “need not be supported by any reason.” Although these challenges are commonplace in today’s courts, several Supreme Court cases have questioned the constitutionality of their place in the legal system. This paper will explore the history of peremptory challenges, theories behind them, a few pertinent cases, and reform progress.
The vast majority of criminal cases in the United States, the accused pleads guilty and no trial takes place (Siegel,
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
accused of a crime. The individual has a right to a trial and to be judged by a
During my observation, the courtroom had its sections of prosecutors, defense attorneys, courtroom clerks, bailiffs, the judge and the families of the defendants who’s hearings where scheduled for that day. One thing I notice was once the defendants entered the courtroom; one of the clerks calls the defendants name and speaks to them in private along with the attorney they were appointed with. The defendant has the constitutional right to have an attorney present with them during their hearing and at trial. Majority of the cases that day were resolved with a plea bargain, which is the agreement between the defense and the prosecution in which the defendant pleads guilty to the charges and receives little punishment then what was initially given if the defendant decided to go to trial. One of the defendants was charged with DUI and property damage, as a result the defendant accepted a plea bargain of a
One could wonder why plea bargains are even made. One reason would be that criminal courts are becoming clogged and overcrowded. Going through the proper procedure and processes that we are granted takes time. Trials can take anywhere from days to...
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
When the War on Drugs began, plea bargains were declared constitutional and had to be regularly used to deal with the sudden stress on the legal system (Berger). The courts, prosecutors, and public defenders couldn 't handle the sheer amount of cases; they now had to deal with by allowing them to go to trial. Once plea bargains were made constitutional, it began to impact the very foundations of the Justice System and those who work on it in several ways. Frankly, it 's my belief that career criminals or those who have committed serious offenses should not be allowed to make an appeal. Crimes like murder, theft of large amounts of money or assault cases should not be allowed to go to a plea bargain. On the other hand, first-time offenders, petty criminals and individuals who are in cases with circumstantial evidence should be allowed to plea. Plea bargaining, on the whole, greatly benefits the prosecutor and the Justice System. Also, it allows for the massive backlog of cases to be alleviated through other means and saves the government a lot of time, stress and taxpayer funds that can be used for more useful and relevant matters (Langden). Plea bargaining also greatly benefits the guilty. It allows for them to reduce the sentences and change what type of charge is left on their record. What a person ultimately found guilty of will have repercussions and having a lesser charge on their records can make a huge difference in their lives (Bernman). The difference between a misdemeanor and felony for some people is the difference between employed and
If most cases went to trial, the likelihood of the accused posting bail or the judge releasing the accused on their own recognizance is seldom therefore, jails would be crowded with individuals awaiting court dates. According to an article "Why Innocent People Plead Guilty" by Jed S. Rakoff "In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial." This is infringing people 's right based on the sixth
The system has gone as deep as to making it so that even if a person has not committed a crime, but is being charged for it they can agree to a plea bargain, which makes it so even though the person did not do it the system is going to have them convicted of it anyway (Quigley 1). “As one young man told me ‘who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn’t do?” (Quigley 2). The criminal justice system has scared the majority of the population into believing that even though they did not commit a crime, they are convicted of it.
Another way in which the criminal justice system can be improved upon that rarely gets talked about is holding prosecutors responsible for their dereliction of duty. Their negligence could be the direct reason why someone is falsely convicted and yet nothing is done to them for it. They find ways to circumvent crucial evidence and suffer no punitive repercussions. Some prosecutors have even been known to completely piece together or even make up evidence that makes the defendant appear guilty. How is it possible that these individuals get away with these types of activities and experience no legal