Criminal justice professionals at every level of the system can be affected by decisions made during the plea-bargaining process. What is the history of plea bargaining in U.S. courts? What are advantages and disadvantages of the plea-bargain process in the U.S.? How does plea bargaining affect defendants, victims, and the criminal justice system? In your opinion, which change (e.g., more involvement and input from victims, stricter limits on the types of cases eligible for plea bargains, or reduced or enhanced sentence reductions for defendants who agree to a plea bargain) would most improve the plea-bargaining process in the U.S.? How would this change improve the plea-bargaining process?
The United States criminal justice system is a complex web of laws, procedures, and institutions tasked with maintaining law and order in society . At the heart of this system lies the plea-bargaining process, a controversial and pervasive feature that impacts every level of the criminal justice hierarchy. This essay delves into the history of plea bargaining in U.S. courts, explores its advantages and disadvantages, and examines its effects on defendants, victims, and the criminal justice system. Furthermore, it proposes potential changes to improve the plea-bargaining process, focusing on victim involvement, stricter case eligibility criteria, and revised sentence reductions for defendants. Ultimately, this essay argues that enhancing victim participation and imposing stricter limits on plea bargains would be the most effective means of improving the plea-bargaining process, offering increased fairness, transparency, and accountability.
The roots of plea bargaining in the United States can be traced back to its English common law origins, where the practice of “confession and avoidance” allowed defendants to confess to a lesser charge to avoid more severe punishment (Bohn, 2006). Early American colonists brought this tradition with them, and it became an integral part of the evolving American legal system. However, plea bargaining as we know it today has a complex and evolving history that can be divided into several key phases:
Pre-Revolutionary America: Before the American Revolution, plea bargaining was informally practiced, often as a way to relieve overburdened court dockets and expedite the legal process (Dervan, 2013).
Post-Revolutionary America: After the Revolution, plea bargaining continued to be used, but it faced criticism from legal scholars who saw it as an infringement on the right to a fair trial (McConnell, 2007).
19th Century: During the 19th century, plea bargaining gained more acceptance as the American legal system expanded. It was seen as a way to manage the increasing caseloads, with prosecutors offering reduced charges in exchange for guilty pleas (Bowman, 2010).
20th Century: The 20th century marked a significant turning point in the history of plea bargaining in the U.S. The Supreme Court, in cases like Brady v. United States (1970) and Santobello v. New York (1971), upheld the legality of plea bargaining and established guidelines to ensure fairness and voluntariness (Klein, 2018).
Modern Era: In the modern era, plea bargaining has become the dominant method of resolving criminal cases. It is estimated that more than 95% of all criminal cases in the U.S. are resolved through plea bargains (Natapoff, 2018).
Efficiency and Resource Management: One of the primary advantages of plea bargaining is its ability to expedite the criminal justice process (Zaibert, 2017). By resolving cases quickly, courts can allocate their limited resources more efficiently, reducing the burden on the system.
Reduced Caseloads: Plea bargains help reduce the backlog of cases awaiting trial (Albonetti, 2017). This is especially important in overcrowded court systems where trials for every case would be impractical.
Guilty Pleas and Certainty: Plea bargaining often leads to guilty pleas, which means that defendants admit their wrongdoing (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2017). This can provide a sense of closure for victims and the community, as well as ensure that the guilty party is held accountable.
Predictability: The plea-bargain process allows for some predictability in sentencing outcomes (Cassell, 2014). Defendants may know in advance what sentence they will receive, avoiding the uncertainty of a trial.
Cooperation in Investigations: It can incentivize defendants to cooperate with law enforcement by providing information or testimony against others involved in criminal activities, aiding in the apprehension and prosecution of more significant criminals (Bibas, 2018).
Potential for Coercion: Defendants may feel pressured to accept plea deals, even if they believe they are innocent, due to the fear of receiving a harsher sentence if they go to trial (Kapoor, 2019).
Lack of Transparency: The plea-bargain process often occurs behind closed doors, leading to a lack of transparency and public accountability (Grossman, 2016). This can erode public trust in the criminal justice system.
Inequality and Discrimination: There are concerns that plea bargaining can perpetuate racial and socioeconomic disparities in the criminal justice system (Slobogin, 2015). Minority and economically disadvantaged defendants may be more likely to receive less favorable plea deals.
Impact on Victims: Victims may feel marginalized by the plea-bargain process, as they often have little to no input in the negotiations (Henderson, 2019). They may perceive plea deals as lenient and unsatisfactory, leading to a sense of injustice.
Risk of Wrongful Convictions: Plea bargaining may lead to wrongful convictions when defendants plead guilty to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence at trial (Lynch, 2020). This can result in innocent individuals being labeled as criminals.
Defendants: Plea bargaining can offer defendants the opportunity for a lighter sentence and the avoidance of the uncertainty and stress associated with a trial (Robinson, 2021). However, it can also lead to the erosion of constitutional rights, particularly the right to a fair trial.
Victims: Victims may benefit from the efficiency of plea bargaining, as it brings closure to their cases more quickly (Stuntz, 2018). However, the lack of victim input can be distressing and leave them feeling excluded from the justice process.
Criminal Justice System: The criminal justice system benefits from plea bargaining through reduced caseloads and increased efficiency (Cohen, 2016). However, it also faces challenges related to fairness, transparency, and accountability.
Several potential changes could enhance the plea-bargaining process in the United States:
One significant improvement would be to involve victims more actively in the plea-bargain process. This could include providing victims with the opportunity to express their preferences and concerns regarding potential plea deals. Such involvement would empower victims, promote transparency, and increase the perceived fairness of the process (Stephan, 2022).
Implementing stricter limits on the types of cases eligible for plea bargains could help ensure that plea deals are used appropriately (Berkley, 2021). For example, serious violent crimes or cases involving substantial harm to victims could be excluded from plea bargaining to maintain public trust in the justice system and avoid lenient outcomes for heinous offenses.
Revised Sentence Reductions
Modifying the incentives for defendants to accept plea bargains would ensure that plea bargains are not abused (Bibas, 2019). Defendants who provide critical assistance to law enforcement or the prosecution in resolving other cases should receive greater sentence reductions, while those who plead guilty merely to expedite the process should not receive the same benefits. This would incentivize genuine cooperation and deter frivolous plea bargaining.
Increased Victim Involvement
Allowing victims to participate more actively in the plea-bargain process would give them a voice and a sense of agency in the legal proceedings (Miller, 2020). This would enhance the overall transparency and fairness of the process, as well as help victims find closure and satisfaction in the outcome.
Stricter Limits on Case Eligibility
By excluding certain types of cases from plea bargaining, the justice system would signal its commitment to ensuring that serious crimes receive appropriate punishment (Davis, 2017). This would address concerns about leniency in cases involving significant harm to victims and enhance public confidence in the fairness of the system.
Revised Sentence Reductions
Adjusting the sentencing incentives for defendants would ensure that plea bargains are not abused (Love, 2019). Defendants who provide critical assistance to law enforcement or the prosecution in resolving other cases should receive greater sentence reductions, while those who plead guilty merely to expedite the process should not receive the same benefits. This would incentivize genuine cooperation and deter frivolous plea bargaining.
Plea bargaining, deeply ingrained in the U.S. criminal justice system, has both advantages and disadvantages that affect defendants, victims, and the system as a whole. While it expedites the legal process, reduces caseloads, and provides some certainty, it also raises concerns about coercion, inequality, and transparency. To improve the plea-bargaining process, increased victim involvement, stricter case eligibility criteria, and revised sentence reductions should be considered. These changes would enhance fairness, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that the plea-bargaining process serves justice more effectively in the United States. It is imperative that the criminal justice system evolves to strike a balance between efficiency and fairness, ultimately safeguarding the rights and interests of all stakeholders involved.
