The Plea Bargain

Class: Criminal Procedure

Professor: Jacobs

Topic: Should We be Ashamed of Plea Bargaining in Our Criminal Justice System?

The overwhelming response from the class was yes, we should be ashamed.

Why?  Well, according to one classmate, a person held in pretrial incarceration shouldn't be subjected to the difficult choice of either pleading guilty and giving up his constitutionally protected rights for a lesser sentence, or remaining in jail until trial where, if found guilty, he would be subjected to a higher punishment.

This view of plea bargaining requires a belief that the punishment one is subjected to after trial is: 1) abnormally high, and 2) is so because of its extortionate utility.  This argument sees the state as using the higher punishment to persuade the defendant to plead so that they can clear their dockets and not have to prove guilt - which can be tough.  I'm not so quick to make that assumption, but it seemed to me that the majority of my classmates assigned this motivation to the judicial system automatically.

Although the most reasonable argument to have during class would have been whether the punishments given after plea bargaining are truly a bargain and not bait, we spent most of the time lamenting over the unfortunate positions that people are put into and the "unfair" choices they would be forced to make.  A sample:

"I just don't see how it's ok for a guy who is in jail and ... maybe he needs to feed his kids or maybe will lose his job ... and then the prosecutor says that 'all this can end if you plead' ... I just don't see how that's right ..."

Giving the benefit of doubt to the courts that the punishments handed down after trial are the baseline norm however, I can't see how plea bargaining would be anything but beneficial to the lowly and accused.

When you are indicted, there are generally two possible options that you can choose:  cop a plea, which will get you a reduced sentence; or go to trial.  If you go to trial and are found guilty, you will be subjected to the full punishment of the law for the crime. And, if you are acquitted, of course, you will be set free.  Where is the horribleness in this situation?

The only remedy to what my classmates thought was such an unholy proposition - bargaining for a lesser sentence with the state - would be to take that option away from the defendant.  But this doesn't remedy any of the problems the defendant will face!  The only thing refusing plea bargaining will accomplish is that everyone is now subject to the full punishment whether they plead guilty or drag the state through the process of proving their guilt.  You still have to sit in jail awaiting trial, which means you will still lose your job or have your kids taken into state custody.  

"Oh, what's that?  You want to offer a guilty plea so you can get the hell out of here and take care of your business?  Sorry, we had to take away that option because we thought it might be unfair to you.  So anyway, see you at trial."

There is a virtue in announcing your guilt and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court.  This should be rewarded for a myriad of reasons.  First, the crime or controversy is now all wrapped up, so people (the victim, offender, and the state) can get on with their lives.  Second, it does clear dockets, and we as a people can stop wasting time in the court and get to the more important business.  Third, in some situations the plea is used by the state to get information against more important criminals.  And Fourth, taking moral responsibility for your actions shows the court you understand what you did was wrong and is persuasive in factoring whether or not you will become a recidivist.

The only real unfortunate situation is when an assumed innocent is charged and is presented with an option to plead guilty and face lower penalties, or go to trial with all the rights given therewith and attempt to prove his innocence against a more severe threat of punishment.  Again though, taking the bargaining away from the innocent will not alleviate his problem of having to face trial.  He will go to trial and face the harshest punishment regardless.  

Should we trust an innocent in this situation to make the right choice for himself?  Obviously. Who better would understand what is in his best interest than the accused himself?  I certainly don't want to be making such serious decisions for others.  We should allow the accused to take stock of the situation they find themselves in and weigh the risks and benefits of going to trial themselves.  If they want to offer the state a deal, who am I to tell them they shouldn't do so? We've already arrested them, why should we take even more autonomy away unless it serves some useful purpose?