Answer

Plea Bargain

The United States Criminal justice system’s fundamental goal is to provide justice to all individuals. Notably, people have constitutional rights, which are sometimes infringed, thereby leading to court actions.  However, whereas many persons will try and comprehend limited justice in police or prison officers’ hands, it still baffles many why the courts accept and encourage suspects to abolish their right to a jury and go for a plea bargain.

The primary reasons why people waive their constitutionally protected right to a jury trial and accept a plea bargain are coercion and personal needs.  Coercion considers the role of attorneys involved in cases resulting in a plea bargain. Often, most of the attorneys working for the courts are appointed to offer services to individuals who may not be able to afford theirs. Often, these state-appointed attorneys are focused on getting what is beneficial to the courts and not necessarily for the clients. Considering that most of their clientele are involved in petty crimes or cases in which they have not been proven guilty, the attorneys focus on convincing them to take a plea bargain and be placed on probation instead of going to trial.  According to Kutateladze and Lawson (2017), plea bargains are beneficial to courts as they free up time to handle other pending cases while also acting as a source of continuous income from those on probation. The second reason why individuals take a plea bargain is for personal needs. For instance, a single mother would see a plea bargain offering her probation as a better alternative to staying in prison while awaiting trial.

Plea bargain has become a central practice in the US criminal justice system. However, I believe that it is not constitutional as it takes away the constitutionally provided right of a person to a jury. Therefore, one fails to be proven guilty or not by competent legal professions. Secondly, a plea bargain is seldom an independent decision. In this regard, the involved suspects are coerced into taking plea bargains hoping for better outcomes. Consequently, it emerges as an approach to shape a legal case’s outcome by other individuals who do not make up the jury or the defense team (Kutateladze & Lawson, 2017).  Lastly, plea bargaining is not constitutional as it helps real offenders escape true justice while at the same time forcing innocent suspects to accept crimes which they did not commit.

The case of Emma Faye Stewart impacted me the most. Notably, from arrest to court proceedings, justice was not served as arresting officers did not explain what crime she had committed. Moreover, the bail was set high to $70,000, which she could not afford. After being coerced into taking a plea bargain, she was required to pay the state probation fees for ten years while the probation status limited her benefits, eventually pushing her into becoming a homeless person. Therefore, from this case’s perspective, the criminal justice system is less focused on serving justice. Instead, it is a system that enforces procedures that benefit it at the expense of the victims.

Individually, I do not support the plea bargain.  The principal reason for opposing the practice is the adverse impacts it has on the victims and suspects in criminal courts. In this regard, a plea bargain is against the sixth amendment, which guarantees everyone a right to a jury during court cases. Therefore, the practice is against the US constitution. The adverse second effect of the bargain is its tendency to deny justice to those involved. Notably, the penal code consists of specific punishments for various crimes. However, when one takes a plea bargain, the sentence issued is not in line with the penal code. Therefore, aside from failing to determine whether an individual is indeed guilty or not, the plea bargain alters the nature of the sentence issued.