Answer

Pros and Cons of Plea Bargains

Plea bargain is a common legal process in the United States. It accounts for approximately 90% of criminal cases. According to Henderson (2019), plea bargain refers to an agreement reached between a defendant and the prosecutor where the former pleads guilty in order to receive a lesser sentence or offence. The process involves asking the defendant to plead to either a less serious charge or one of several serious charges. The prosecutor then dismisses the other charges and hands the defended a lenient sentence. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of plea bargains.

Advantages of Plea Bargain

As much as plea bargains are criticized, it is noted as being important to the justice system. More than 90% of criminal cases are settled as a result of negotiated pleas. This implies that less than 10% of criminal cases proceed into the trial stage (Batra, 2015). This implies that plea bargain has a number of advantages. For instance, it is the primary apparatus that is used by prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges to cooperate and resolve criminal cases outside the normal court processes.

Plea bargains are advantageous since it frees space in the busy schedule of the judges. It is noted that such bargains help eradicate the need for trial and other processes that lead to overcrowding of the court calendar. The judges are also skeptical of the prison’s capacity to hold more inmates because they are already crowded.  Because of this argument, plea bargains are associated with the creation of a more judicial economy since it helps in conserving the limited resources.

            Second, prosecutors find plea bargains advantageous since it lightens their caseload thus making it attractive. This approach to court settlement is preferred since it assures the defendant of their conviction even if it will be of a lesser crime or charge. This is regardless of the strength of the evidence presented in court. Prosecutors tend to wage expensive and long trials but at times they lose. To avoid such a case, they opt for plea bargains. A case in point is the dishonorable O.J Simpson’s murder trial (Batra, 2015). To avoid such negative scenarios, prosecutors could go further and use plea bargains to launch a stronger case against a co-defendant. This means accepting one plea bargain from one defendant and using it as damaging testimony against the other. This assures the defendant of at least one conviction of a lesser charge. It also enhances the defendant’s chance of winning a conviction against the co-defendant. An example is when a low-level criminal presents evidence and information that would be helpful in pinning a bigger criminal.

Third, the defendant could find plea bargains to be advantageous since it provides them the chance for a lenient sentence compared to if they would be convicted at trial. The fact that defendants who agree to plea bargains are offered the option of fewer charges is a relief to them. Similarly, it assures the defendants that they can trade off the risk of going to jail with the certainty of being let free. This is mostly the case for people being represented by a public defender dealing with many cases at the same time.

Disadvantages of Plea Bargains

            Kurlychek and Johnson (2019) note that as much as plea bargains are advantageous, some countries consider them immoral and unethical. This statement is backed by the following points. First, there have been complaints that plea bargains could allow offenders to escape the punishment they deserve according to the law. As a result, the use of plea bargain subjects unwarranted penalties on the victims who have a constitutional right to fair trial and court proceedings (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019). Likewise, there are arguments connoting that defendants who are innocent could be forced to plead guilty to avoid the bewildering process of seeking justice. These complains have outweighed the benefits of plea bargains thus necessitating its ban in some jurisdictions around the USA. This includes states such as El Paso Texas and Alaska. However, the El Paso’s ban between 1978 to 1984 led to doubled trial rates and overwhelming backlog of cases by 250%. This called for a reorganization of the courts to allow civil court judges to help in facilitating the criminal trials.

In conclusion, therefore, the decision to accept or reject a plea bargain is a controversial topic. Apparently, people agree to plea bargains because of a number of factors, namely; their criminal history, finances, and the specific factors of the case among other reasons. The decision could also be dependent on what the victim or the defendant are being offered in return. The most troubling finding as made in this paper is that plea bargains can be hurtful to victims and defendants who are innocent thus agreeing to such a settlement because of pressure or coercion denies them their constitutional right to a fair hearing and trial. In spite of this setback, plea bargains are advantageous in saving the judges from unnecessary backlog while also reducing congestion in the courts and prisons.