Plea-Bargaining

[Riddle]

For those who don't know, plea-bargaining is a negotiation between the defendant and the prosecutor outside of court in which the defendant pleads guilty, provides information about accomplices, etc. in exchange for the suggestion by the prosecution for a more lenient sentence.

A lot of people hate plea bargaining. They don't think criminals should get off easy for eslling-out accomplices or pleading guilty however the fact of the matter is that 90% of convictions are a result of some sort of plea-bargaining (source)

Plea-bargaining has many benefits including less jail crowding, less court congestion, and more convictions of criminals, and I believe is a positive factor in court cases.

What do you guys think? Do you agree with plea-bargaining or believe that it is morally reprehensible?

 

[Sucumbio]

Uh, yeah plea bargaining is good. Too many cases going to trial without it. Kind of a throw away topic, don't you think? I mean anyone who thinks plea bargains are morally reprehensible either 1.) don't know what it is 2.) watch too much tv 3.) some combination of 1 and 2.

 

[Riddle]

Fine, I'll play devil's advocate just for you:

Of course plea-bargaining is wrong. People who are guilty of crimes are given lower sentences just because their lawyer tells them to plead guilty. These people are almost always assured of being found guilty. The only reason plea-bargaining is used in the first place is convenience. Can you really justify the lowering of sentences just because some prosecutors and judges don't want to deal with a court case?

 

[Sucumbio]

People who are guilty of crimes are given lower sentences just because their lawyer tells them to plead guilty.

This is actually rare, this type of plea bargain. The Sentence Bargain. Person pleads guilty and gets a shorter sentence. It's sometimes used in high profile cases where the prosecutor does not want to reduce the charges against the defendant, usually for fear of how the newspapers will react. A sentence bargain may allow the prosecutor to obtain a conviction to the most serious charge, while assuring the defendant of an acceptable sentence. Also this can help a prosecutor obtain a conviction if, for example, a defendant is facing serious charges and is afraid of being hit with the "maximum" sentence.

These people are almost always assured of being found guilty. The only reason plea-bargaining is used in the first place is convenience.

Actually that's the exact opposite of why plea bargaining is so popular. In many cases going to trial may end up losing the case for the prosecution. The Plea Bargain makes it so they get their conviction, without risking the case being thrown out, on technicalities, hung juries, etc.

Can you really justify the lowering of sentences just because some prosecutors and judges don't want to deal with a court case?

Again sentence pleas are fairly rare. And it's not about laziness. It's about getting sure convictions.

 

[Riddle]

This is actually rare, this type of plea bargain. The Sentence Bargain. Person pleads guilty and gets a shorter sentence. It's sometimes used in high profile cases where the prosecutor does not want to reduce the charges against the defendant, usually for fear of how the newspapers will react. A sentence bargain may allow the prosecutor to obtain a conviction to the most serious charge, while assuring the defendant of an acceptable sentence. Also this can help a prosecutor obtain a conviction if, for example, a defendant is facing serious charges and is afraid of being hit with the "maximum" sentence.

That just shouldn't be allowed. Why shouldn't the defendant get the "maximum" sentence. If they comitted the crime then they should get what they deserve.

Actually that's the exact opposite of why plea bargaining is so popular. In many cases going to trial may end up losing the case for the prosecution. The Plea Bargain makes it so they get their conviction, without risking the case being thrown out, on technicalities, hung juries, etc.

A hung jury is not a bad reason for a defendant to be found not guilty. If the jury can not agree that the defendant is guilty then they should not be convicted. Our legal system is based on the mantra "innocent until proven guilty" and if the jury is hung then there isn't proof. So we should just compromise to be sure to get the guilty? I don't buy that, Why can't prosecuters actually, you know, just build solid cases and prove the defendant guilty. After all there are situations in which innocent people agree to plea-bargains because of extreme pressure or because they are afraid of harsh sentences and that just isn't acceptable.

Again sentence pleas are fairly rare. And it's not about laziness. It's about getting sure convictions.

Getting sure convictions with out having to do work and getting sure convictions on innocent people. While sentence pleas might be rare the other form of plea-bargaining, "charge bargaining" is fairly common and acts similarly. The defendant in this case just pleads guilty to one charge or to a lesser charge which serves the purpose of lowering their sentence (source). Why should guilty people not be tried for things they have done? Because prosecuters want the sure conviction and the money that goes with it.

 

[Sucumbio]

That just shouldn't be allowed. Why shouldn't the defendant get the "maximum" sentence. If they comitted the crime then they should get what they deserve.

Remember, it's about percentages. Odds. If it means a conviction with a shorter sentence, that's still better than no conviction and no sentence.

A hung jury is not a bad reason for a defendant to be found not guilty. If the jury can not agree that the defendant is guilty then they should not be convicted. Our legal system is based on the mantra "innocent until proven guilty" and if the jury is hung then there isn't proof. So we should just compromise to be sure to get the guilty? I don't buy that, Why can't prosecuters actually, you know, just build solid cases and prove the defendant guilty. After all there are situations in which innocent people agree to plea-bargains because of extreme pressure or because they are afraid of harsh sentences and that just isn't acceptable.

well another thing too is that plea deals are in fact deals. the defendant may have something the prosecution needs, so they offer lesser charges, shorter sentence. it's not avoid problems perse, more to sweeten the pot so to speak.

Why should guilty people not be tried for things they have done? Because prosecuters want the sure conviction and the money that goes with it.

... prosecutors get paid either way... and they will often go with what sticks, rather than go on a fishing trip.

 

[Riddle]

Yeah I agree with you on all that. I don't really see how you refuted any of my points but the first one though.

... prosecutors get paid either way... and they will often go with what sticks, rather than go on a fishing trip.

Prosecuters don't get paid more for getting a conviction but they are more likely to be noticed if they have a high conviction rate

 

[Sucumbio]

Yeah I agree with you on all that. I don't really see how you refuted any of my points but the first one though.

My point was that there's more to it than you're suggesting. A lot will depend on the circumstances, the charges themselves...

Example: Two men are drinking at a bar in state X, and get into an argument. A fight breaks out. During the fight one of the men picks up a chair and strikes the other man over the head with it. The man whose head was struck by the chair, dies. The one that lives, is charged. He's charged with:

• manslaughter (death unintentional but occurring during or as a result of an action that is reckless or otherwise could result in death) max penalty: 30 year
• assault (threatening to beat someone) max penalty: 1 year
• with a deadly weapon (the chair) max penalty: 5 years
• battery (physically beating someone) max penalty: 2 years
• drunk and disorderly conduct max penalty: 6 months

In the state of X the max penalty for a guilty conviction on all counts is 38.5 years.

The man during his arraignment intends to enter a plea of Not Guilty on all counts. He feels as does his attorney that his case is strong, because the man that died had threatened him during the argument, and he was exercising his right to defend himself with deadly force, which is legal in State X. His assault and battery charge is also defensible because of this. The drunk and disorderly is defensible because he was in a bar, drinking, and didn't get disorderly until he was assaulted.

The prosecution now has to decide. Do we take this to trial, call witnesses from the bar, forensics from the lab on the bar stool, the kill shot, the tox levels of alcohol, do we test for presence of other chemicals that may have made things worse, etc etc.

Or do we offer a plea bargain. The attorney general's office commands the prosecutor to offer a plea bargain. Plead Guilty to Manslaughter, and the other charges will be dropped, and we will recommend at your sentencing 5 years, parole in 1 + time served.

Man accepts this bargain, enters his plea of Guilty at the arraignment to Manslaughter, and the State drops all remaining charges. At the sentencing, 3 weeks later, he is sentenced to 5 years, eligible for parole in 1 year, and his sentence term is technically already underway, as he's been in jail since the incident several weeks prior.

Now obviously I skipped some steps for simplicity sake, such as bail hearing, or the fines involved in these charges. The point is, the State Attorney Generals of the US don't want to take EVERY CASE to trial. It's a drain on the taxpayers, it's unnecessary, and it can in some circumstances lead to fewer convictions. In this example, the guy was guilty. He killed the other dude, justified or not, protected by law, or not. He did it. And he'll now go to jail for it. But not for 40 years, lol. Nor should he! He was drunk, it was an accident, he meant to knock him out, he didn't know the guy had a soft spot on his head that got hit in -just- the right way, when coupled with his poor health would lead to fatal aneurysm. And he's not getting off "scot-free" either, he is going to jail, and he'll now have a permanent record and a conviction of a felony. In other words, he's learned his lesson, paid his debt to society, and all without a long drawn out expensive and potentially risky trial.

 

[Riddle]

Maybe the guy that has to go to jail for 5 years is innocent! Self-defense is apparently a grounds for the killing of a human in State X. If he actually did kill the other guy in self-defense it doesn't seem as if he should have to go to jail at all. Your example just further supports my point. A very possibly innocent man was sent to jail for 5 years.

You say this man should be sent to jail, but why? From your description it sounds like his action very well could have been justfied. Explain to me why this man should go to jail and I might agree with you.

[/still devil's advocate]

 

[Sucumbio]

Maybe the guy that has to go to jail for 5 years is innocent! Self-defense is apparently a grounds for the killing of a human in State X. If he actually did kill the other guy in self-defense it doesn't seem as if he should have to go to jail at all. Your example just further supports my point. A very possibly innocent man was sent to jail for 5 years.

You say this man should be sent to jail, but why? From your description it sounds like his action very well could have been justfied. Explain to me why this man should go to jail and I might agree with you.

[/totally missing the point]

Fixed.

See, the guy chose the bargain because he didn't want to risk going to jail for 40 years. His attorney only -said- he had a good case because of the self-defense clause. This would have to have been proven at trial. The fact he took the bargain means his defense was actually pretty poor, he was hedging a bet. And it paid off... he gets off for 5 years vs 40, and the State avoids a costly, time consuming trial.

 

[Riddle]

Fixed.

See, the guy chose the bargain because he didn't want to risk going to jail for 40 years. His attorney only -said- he had a good case because of the self-defense clause. This would have to have been proven at trial. The fact he took the bargain means his defense was actually pretty poor, he was hedging a bet. And it paid off... he gets off for 5 years vs 40, and the State avoids a costly, time consuming trial.

So a potentially innocent man gets 5 years of prison. Yeah that worked out so well. [/sarcasm]

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

I'm on the fence about this topic. If a witness has vital information in a serial murder case, then I feel like information should be acquired by any means necessary. But at the same time, letting another murderer walk the streets again just for giving information doesn't seem right to me.

It's an interesting topic, and I'm glad you brought it up, Riddle.

 

[pockyD]

It sounds to me like you don't understand how the "max sentence" works

There can be different punishments assigned for the exact same crime - it's not like each separate charge has a strict punishment (in most cases)

It seems to me that you believe when they plead out, they are getting a reduced sentence/punishment because they are getting convicted of a lesser crime; more often than not, this is simply not the case; it's just a lower punishment within the same range of acceptable sentences (like 15 years instead of 18 years for a crime where the sentence is "15-20 years")

There's nothing in mine or most people's moral code that states that anyone guilty of a crime that gets "15-20 years" should always get 20 years.

 

[KrazyGlue]

So a potentially innocent man gets 5 years of prison. Yeah that worked out so well. [/sarcasm]

Ok, I know your playing devil's advocate but now you're just repeating yourself. You're always potentially innocent when you go into a trial; that's why there's a trial in the first place. Every time someone is convicted of a crime there is still a chance that they're innocent, so I guess we just shouldn't convict anyone.

If someone decides they have a weak case and wants to plead guilty, why not let them? Why force them to go through a (costly) trial which they know they will lose? It's a waste of money and time.

 

[Riddle]

Ok, I know your playing devil's advocate but now you're just repeating yourself. You're always potentially innocent when you go into a trial; that's why there's a trial in the first place. Every time someone is convicted of a crime there is still a chance that they're innocent, so I guess we just shouldn't convict anyone.

If someone decides they have a weak case and wants to plead guilty, why not let them? Why force them to go through a (costly) trial which they know they will lose? It's a waste of money and time.

In this situation however the case wasn't weak. He probably wouldn't have been convicted. Of course we should convict people but we should try at all costs to prevent incorrect convictions and plea bargaining simply makes it more likely for these to occur.

 

[KrazyGlue]

In this situation however the case wasn't weak. He probably wouldn't have been convicted. Of course we should convict people but we should try at all costs to prevent incorrect convictions and plea bargaining simply makes it more likely for these to occur.

That's only an issue if someone who is innocent actually decides to give up on their case and put themselves in jail. Additionally, plea bargaining is only an option. It's not like anyone is being forced to go through with it. Without plea bargaining as an option, you'd be forcing people to go to trial even if they have no hope of acquittal. Seems pointless to me.