Should The Practice Of Plea Bargaining Be Abolished?

Should The Practice Of Plea Bargaining Be Abolished?

Introduction

Plea bargaining usually involves the defense and prosecution in a case working out a “mutually satisfactory disposition” in which the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or fewer charges in exchange for a lighter penalty (Adelstein and Miceli, 2009). Plea bargains are not always easy to recognize. Negotiations involving formal agreements are termed “explicit plea bargains”; however, some plea bargains are called “implicit plea bargains” because they involve no guarantee of leniency. Explicit bargains are the more important of the two. (Fisher, 2008)

Once anathema, plea bargains are now blessed by even the United States Supreme Court. They are announced daily in the news, but many individuals do not understand that all plea bargains are not equal, nor do they understand why bargaining occurs so often. Plea bargains are estimated to occur in some 90 percent of criminal cases in the United States (Nasheri, 2008). In 1996, 91 percent of all felony convictions in the state courts were disposed of through guilty pleas. Although not all guilty pleas result from plea negotiations, many do, and the remaining pleas typically involve some sort of anticipated leniency. (Vogel, 2007)

Types of Plea Bargains

There are three main classifications of plea bargains. Each type involves implied sentence reductions, but those reductions are achieved in very different ways (Combs, 2007). The first category is charge bargaining, in which a defendant pleads guilty to reduced charges. Charge bargaining occurs when defendants plead guilty to necessarily included offenses (e.g., aggravated assault rather than attempted murder).

Sentence bargaining involves assurances of lighter or alternative sentences in return for a defendant's pleading guilty (Nasheri, 2008). One of the most visible forms of sentence bargaining occurs when defendants plead guilty to murder in order to avoid the death penalty (Fisher, 2008). Sentence bargains also occur in less serious cases, such as pleading guilty in exchange for a sentence of “time served,” which means the defendant will be sentenced to however long he or she has been detained and will, therefore, be immediately released. The third type of plea negotiation is count bargaining (Vogel, 2007), in which defendants who face multiple charges may be allowed to plead guilty to fewer counts. The charges need not be identical: The prosecutor may drop any charge or charges in exchange for a guilty plea on the remaining charges. Because it applies only to defendants who face multiple charges, this is the least common form of bargaining.

Research has shown that defendants who plead guilty receive less severe sentences than their counter-parts who exercise their right to trial (Fisher, 2008). Government statistics for 1996 show that the average sentence following a felony conviction by jury trial was 150 months, compared with only 54 months for defendants who pled guilty. Based on these statistics, it appears that merely pleading guilty can reduce one's sentence by about two-thirds. It is possible, however, that some of the difference is due to defendants who refuse harsh bargains but receive ...