The Plea Bargains In The American Criminal Justice System

One of the cornerstones of the American Criminal Justice System the sixth amendment- the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. However, to the surprise of this audience, over 95 percent of all cases resulting in criminal convictions, in this country, never reach the ears of a jury, but instead are settled by plea bargain agreements. Plea bargains are legally binding agreements, in which the defendant exchanges guilt for a lighter sentence or reduced charge (Pollock, 2019, p.262). In the PBS documentary, The Plea, the plea bargain process is examined thoroughly in numerous criminal cases from drug indictments to capital murder. This process is highlighted, as it, is spearheaded by judges, defense attorneys and prosecutors, who are
overzealous and believe this process is a method for “ensuring cases continue to move through backlogged courts” (Bikel, 2004).
The use of plea bargains to resolve criminal court cases often places in jeopardy the constitutional rights of defendants. The pressure to admit guilt for the purpose of being released versus opting for a jury trial is the primary reason this form of justice is utilized. Additional reasons for plea bargaining agreements are: the overcrowding of courts, if pleas were not allowed, courts would be overwhelmed and forcibly closed. The caseload of prosecutors', with fewer trials, prosecutors’ can more effectively indict and focus on the most serious cases, and plea bargains save defendants money by not having to adequately defend themselves at trial. Although, plea bargains are critical to the judiciary process, the plea bargains presented in the film, triggered severe ethical dilemmas and ultimately postured the defendants for a lifetime
of failure.

The plea agreements, in the film, presented various ethical dilemmas. Ethical dilemmas are situations in which it becomes difficult to make a decision because the right course of action carries negative consequences. Given that, the most apparent ethical dilemmas depicted, was that of defendants admitting guilt, while asserting innocence and criminal leaders proclaiming to serve justice, specifically, defense attorneys, providing inadequate service to those who could not defend themselves. The cases of Ms. Erma Faye Stewart and Ms. Kelly are prime examples. Ms. Stewart and Ms. Kelly were both single African American mothers, persuaded by their defense attorney to accept a plea bargain agreements, when wrongfully arrested in a drug bust. Both defendants persistently maintained their innocence. Ms. Stewart, stated “He was, like, pushing me to plead guilty and take the probation. He wasn't on my side at all” (Bikel, 2004). Both women eventually accepted plea deals after spending nights in a cold and overcrowded jail cell away from their children. “Even though I wasn't guilty, I was willing to plead guilty because I had to go home to my kids” (Bikel, 2004), said Ms. Stewart upon release.
Like the Stewart and Kelly cases, the case of Ms.
Pasty Jarrett was just as astounding. In 1973, Ms. Jarrett and a friend took a road trip to New York. During their trip unbeknownst to Ms. Jarrett, her friend robbed and murdered a gas station employee. It would be three years after this murder before Ms. Jarrett would be arrested as an accomplice to the murder. The evidence in this case was weak against Ms. Jarrett, as there were no fingerprints or blood found. The only evidence was a single eyewitness testimony, which was unclear, that placed Ms. Jarrett at the scene of the crime. Ms. Jarret refused to admit guilt. To avoid trial, Ms. Jarrett was offered a plea bargain, she refused. Armed with belief in the American justice system and truth on her side, she proceeded forward. Ms. Jarret would be tried, convicted and sentenced to 25 years in
prison.
When she advised her defense attorney of her wishes to refuse the plea, he replied, “'Well, my hands are tied” (Bikel, 2004). How can the hands of your defense attorney be tied? The fundamental purpose of the defense counsel is to zealously serve as the client’s counselor and advocate with courage and devotion and to render effective and quality representation (Pollock, 2019, p. 260). There was no zealous investigating or criminal research performed, only offering a young woman a short or long term prison sentence. Both of these situations triggered ethical dilemmas because the outcomes created negative consequences, such as a felony records for the defendants, leading to impoverished lives and injuring the reputation of our justice system by allowing such injustice to those it was established to protect.
The film incorporated two different perspectives of justice: bureaucratic and law as a confidence game. The primary perspective seen throughout the entire film, was bureaucratic justice. Bureaucratic justice approaches each case as the same, with the goal of efficiency (Pollock, 2019, p. 244). This form of justice presumes guilt and places a priority on achieving the most expeditious resolution to the case leading to plea bargaining for the best sentence possible (Pollock, 2019, p.244). Each case examined during this film experienced rushed plea deals, with equivalent outcomes of incarceration encompassing lengthy sentences and probations. The second perspective of justice integrated into the film was law as a confidence game. This perspective is demonstrated when the prosecutor and defense attorney conspire to portray something they are not, generally adversaries, when actually they are working together (Pollock, 2019, p. 244). The cases surrounding the Stewart/Kelley drug busts best exemplifies this perspective of justice. The offices of the prosecutor and defense attorney’s in those cases literally worked together to not only arrest and charge each defendant but also to ensure each case led to a plea agreement resulting in some form of incarceration.
In some instances, a good relationship between the prosecutor and defense attorney serves to aid the defendant, however, when both offices are working against the defendant, their fate may hang in the balance.
The film is filled with implications of ethical systems, however the two systems that are apparent in explaining the outcomes of the cases are: the Ethics of Virtue and Egoism. The Ethics of Virtue is a deontological system that places focus on developing strong character, such as, integrity, trustworthiness and honor rather than following a set of rules deemed right in society. This system is most reflected in the Cook, Jarrett and Gampero cases. Ms. Jarrett’s and Mr. Cook’s refusal to follow the rules of society by admitting guilt in exchange for freedom, demonstrated strong integrity and honor, they both adamantly refused to lie, even as they faced harsh prison sentences without the possibility of parole. In the Gampero case, his unwavering account of his story, even as the judge insisted he admit guilt to receive a lighter sentence, demonstrated strong honor. Although all cases resulted in harsh convictions, neither defendant compromised their truth or character. The second ethical system found is Egoism. Egoism is a teleological system of ethics that suggests our self-interest is promoted by intentional actions, even actions that are presumably morally motivated. Given this, we can conclude the relationship between ethics and self-interest is that some acts are thoughtfully motivated, and some acts are disguised forms of self-glorification. This system is most reflected in the Stewart and Kelly cases. These cases depicts judges, rogue prosecutors and inadequate defense attorneys, who operated not in the interest of justice, but in their own self-interest. The Hearne County criminal justice leaders played judge, jury, and executioner with these people’s lives by knowingly disregarding the law, forcibly suggesting defendants admit guilt, and offered little to no legal counsel to defendants. This is how a
This is how the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorneys could arrest, charge, and convict 28 people for a crime they had no evidence of them committing.
Reflecting on the film, I have sentiments of anger, pity, but mostly compassion. These sentiments are directed at the system for allowing such behavior by judges and defense attorneys and at the defendants because many of them were uneducated on the law and led to believe information that was not in their best interest. I immediately thought of the rate at which African American males are incarcerated in this country. In light that, only three to five percent of criminal cases actually making it to trial, which means the majority of African American defendants never get a trial. When discussing this assignment with my roommates, one stated, “Who wouldn’t rather do three years and probation for a crime they didn’t commit, than risk twenty or more years for a crime they didn’t do”. I was floored because in today’s society, to have this mindset is terrifying. In an effort to end they type of illegal practices presented in the film, society must continue to become educated in the law and hope everyone that claims to serve in the interest of justice, actually does. This was an incredible film that sparked insightful dialogue, and a good teaching tool in the criminal justice discipline.