Plea Bargaining: A Violation of Rights
Posted: Sunday, July 31, 2011
by Jessie I Snyder
TRUE INSPIRATIONS
While plea bargaining may save the taxpayers time and money; I believe that it is wrong because it violates both the criminal’s right to a fair trial and the victim’s right to justice.
Imagine that you are only seven-years-old. Now, imagine that two men broke into your family’s apartment, brutally raping your mother and shooting and killing your father right in front of you. Then, imagine that the criminal justice system only gave those two men 40 years with the possibility of parole in just 16 years. How would that make you feel? I was that seven-year-old child.
The truth is that plea bargains are a necessary good for the judicial system. Supporters of plea bargains argue that there is no practical way for the court system to function without them. The legal system would not be able to handle the number of cases that would go to trial if plea bargaining were substantially reduced.
For the defendant, the most significant benefit to plea bargaining is to take away the uncertainty of a criminal trial and to avoid the maximum sentence. Society also benefits from plea bargaining since the agreements lesson court congestion and free up prosecutors to handle more cases.
The use of plea bargaining has become ubiquitous to the criminal justice system, however, a number of problems have been seen, and maybe it is time to rethink the benefits. The legal definition of plea bargaining is: a negotiation between the defense and the prosecutor (and sometimes the judge) that settles a criminal case. The defendant typically pleads guilty to a lesser crime (or fewer charges) than originally charged, in exchange for a guaranteed sentence that is shorter than what the defendant could face if convicted at a trial.
The prosecution gets the certainty of a conviction and a known sentence; the defendant avoids the risk of a higher sentence; and the judge gets to move on to other cases. On the other hand, critics of plea bargaining argue that plea bargains are not only unjust for the victim but also unjust for the criminal. Critics of plea bargaining say: Plea bargains endanger judicial fairness by allowing defendants to escape punishment or coercing them into forgoing trial.
The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser crime in order to avoid the risk of being found guilty at trial. Some attorneys and judges argue that plea bargaining is unconstitutional because it takes away the defendants constitutional right to a trial by jury. In addition, a habitual criminal offender may end up back on the streets to commit the same crime or a more serious crime.
Is justice fair for the victims? Many say that offenders are let off too lightly as a result of plea bargaining; that many bargains are unjust and socially harmful. Plea bargaining in capital murder cases may save taxpayers millions in court cost. But, is it fair for the victims and their families? The very process seems to bypass the justice that comes with a standard criminal trial. Even worse is the potentially lighter sentence given to the accused murderer in exchange for an admission of guilt. (Susan Funaro-09/08)
Those who oppose the broad use of plea bargains maintain that they often undermine justice presenting offenders from receiving punishment appropriate with the crime they commit. By failing to prosecute cases to the fullest dispute of the law, the government sends a signal that unlawful behavior will be tolerated, which in turn encourages more crime.
If plea bargaining is going to continue—and it will because it is a fact of life—victims must be fully informed and their views must be taken into account. Victims—or, in the case of murder, their families—must be allowed to have independent advice so that they are fully aware of the court proceedings. Victims are merely taken outside the court and told what is going to happen. In my perspective it has always been to seek justice, to make sure that the victim’s rights are ensured.
I feel that victims should have the right to veto a plea bargain, especially in the case of capital murder. So, can victims have a say in plea bargaining? Generally, NO the victim has no right to dispute any plea bargain. The law does not provide victims any way to enforce their rights after they have been violated.
Plea bargaining is a procedure within the criminal justice system that can rob the rights of the victims, as well as the rights of the defendants involved in the crimes. According to the Crimes (sentencing procedure) Amendment (victim’s rights and plea bargaining) Bill passed in 1999 provides that the victim has a right to make a full written or oral statement to the court as how the victim saw the event and the facts. The bill requires that victim’s—or in the case of murder, a victim’s family—are fully informed of the plea bargaining process and have the opportunity to express their views. Victims will not have the right to veto a plea bargain.
The impact of the defense is also an important consideration in determining the appropriateness of a plea agreement, and the victim can offer the court a unique perspective on the impact of the crime. A third of the states permit the victim to be heard, either orally or in writing, at plea entry proceedings.
A lot more work needs to be done to identify the best way for the legal system to satisfy those emotional needs of crime victims, and restorative justice theories may provide a good starting point for re-imagining the system. However, the adversarial process as we know it probably cannot accommodate those needs without taking every case to trial, which like it or not is practically impossible.
In conclusion, by explaining the rights of both the victims and the criminals, I have discussed the pros and cons of plea bargaining. Even though, plea bargaining is good for taxpayers because it saves time and money, I feel it is wrong because it violates both the criminal’s right to a fair trial and the victim’s right to justice.
This Article has been viewed 815 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (4 total)A great article Jessie. In fact, a wonderful article. These things had barely ever crossed my mind. I agree with you, to allow a criminal guilty of such a horrendous crime, plead guilty to a much lesser crime and get off with a strongly reduced sentence, could not be right. And also, for some innocent defendant to plead for a lesser crime than he is accused of, is certainly not right either. You write brilliantly.
Thanks for joining my fan club. I will reciprocate.Thank You Joel, for the wonderful comment. I believe you are the first person to tell me that I write brillantly. I am flattered.
Much Love
Jessie
Hi Jesse.
I think your last paragraph sums it up very well. Excellent article!
Hugs,
Dianne
Nicely explained. God bless.Thank you, God bless you, too!
Hi Jessie,
My name is Julie and I was just reading your post. I appreciate your candid response about the topic of plea bargaining. Recently, I completed my Associate of Science degree in Crime Scene Investigations. I am now working on my Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice. Our topic this week is based on plea bargaining.
It seems to me that the victims are merely being victimized all over again. I do not think there is true closure for the victims as long as they know that the offender does not have consequences to pay.
It seems quite odd to me that a victim can go to prevent the perp from getting out early but they cannot do anything to prevent a plea bargain.
Jessi thank you again.
Julie
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.