Posts
Schulhofer's article explains how plea-bargaining systems are an inherently unfair system. This is due to conflicts of interest on the parts of both prosecution and defense attorneys. Both parties are able to accomplish their "job" with minimal effort, and in a shorter amount of time than would be taken if all trials took place in the adversarial system.
I really liked the way this article was written. It was in clear, easy to understand language, and got right to the point. There was a very clear lack of unnecessary fluff. This strikes me as a very interesting subject that I would like to hear more about. The idea of abolishing plea-bargaining systems seems extreme, but according to the limited information presented here it sounds like it would be a much fairer system to the defendants, who currently are simply pushed to plead out. I guess the major question is: Is this encouragement in their best interest or the lawyers'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think I might have to disagree with you Stephen. Abolishing plea bargains seems like it'd be a good idea, but then wouldn't everything have to go to trial?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that plea bargains serve a purpose - they expedite cases, allow defendants to escape the embarrassment of trial, and sometimes cut them a break by giving them a more lenient, fitting punishment than would be offered by a judge or jury (if properly negotiated between client, attorney and prosecutor.)
However, that's not always the way plea-bargaining works, which is why it's a problem. Public defenders are too overwhelmed and underpaid to bring everything to trial, so they have almost no option but to plea out as many cases as possible. In many localities they've become more concerned with cycling through caseloads than pursuing justice, and that's where plea-bargaining becomes a negative. When used this way, there are too many uncertainties, too many facts and ideas overlooked that really need to be discussed.
In my opinion, plea-bargaining could be a more positive thing if we had the proper amount of public defenders. More defense attorneys (ideally with fixed salaries rather than fixed case-by-case commissions) would be able to spread out caseloads, giving them time to actually discuss and negotiate with their client and the prosecutor. This in turn would make plea-bargaining a more positive aspect of the justice system, and would be a better option than that of abolishing pleas altogether.
I am not sure of my stance on plea bargaining. It seems, certainly from the documentary we watched, those who are guilty, with plea bargaining, are offered lesser, more lenient sentences than they would otherwise, and those who are, in fact, innocent are coerced into taking a plea bargain in fear that their delivered sentence could be worse. Plea bargaining seems to just completely change the meaning and purpose of justice, going against the ideas and foundations "we" as a country, tend to commonly idealize (although we know better).
ReplyDelete