Plea Bargaining

Many references found on the subject of plea bargaining project the same message as to why the process has become such a common element of the justice system. The universal missive seems to be advantage for all parties involved, even the victim. There are obvious advantages in terms of time and cost for the judicial system. For judges and prosecutors, plea bargaining provides relief to hectic schedules and an overcrowded docket. Any case resolved outside of the court setting can also ease the burden on limited funds and personnel. Another benefit for prosecutors is the assurance of a conviction, whereas a trial offers the possibility of acquittal. For the defendant, a plea bargain usually involves a lesser charge on their record and a
more lenient sentence. (Criminal) Many judges may face issues with overcrowding in jails and prisons and consider plea deals a viable aid in relieving that situation. With a guilty plea, a lesser sentence is usually incurred, meaning in many cases, time served awaiting trial may meet the conditions of the plea agreement. Therefore, that offender can be ‘processed out’, allowing fewer problems with overcrowding and making it less likely serious offenders will be released before full sentences are served. There is even a perspective that victims can benefit from plea bargains since this process is quicker, less stressful than a trial. (NOLO) While these proclamations infer plea bargaining is an asset to the judicial system, it must be considered that the increasing acceptance of this method may actually be producing adverse consequences.
In his January 15, 2013 article “Dramatic Increase in Percentage Criminal Cases Being Plea Bargained,” Matt Clarke writes that sentencing power is gradually shifting from judges to prosecutors. Because of legislation that allows prosecutors to determine the statutes under which to charge a defendant, an increased coercive effect has been created. Defendants who may have winnable cases or even those who may be innocent opt for accepting plea agreements because they are convinced the risk of going to trial is too great. This shift has resulted in a noticeable reduction in the number of cases being tried by a jury. According to Clarke’s article, some experts say the number of federal criminal defendants who choose a trial over plea bargaining has decreased, since 1977, from twenty-five percent to about three percent. Another factor for possible decreases in trial cases is the risk of ‘annoying’ a judge. Defendants may be foregoing their constitutional right to trial by jury because they fear retribution. “There are some judges who will punish you for going to trial,” acknowledged Bill Cervone, the state attorney in Florida and former head of the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association. “Legally, you cannot impose a longer sentence on someone because they exercised their right to trial. Factually, there are ways to do it.” (Prison Legal
News) In a research summary written by Lindsey Devers, Ph.D., for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, it was noted that more than ninety percent of convictions obtained in 2003 came from plea deals. (BJA) With such wide discretionary latitude, prosecutors would seem to be favored most by the plea bargaining process. Defendants are basically coerced into waiving their constitutional right to trial for fear of a harsher outcome and victims are often frustrated at having limited to no involvement in the outcome whatsoever. Plea bargaining has in essence become our justice system, therefore complete elimination of the process would be unrealistic. But there is need for improvement, some form of regulation of the process. Similarly, our court system might be well served with some reform as well. In any case, I don’t believe our current version of justice is that which the Framers of our Constitution intended.