There are many successful criminal prosecutions particularly in the United States that have not necessarily ended with jury trials. Most of these criminal persecutions have ended through plea bargains. Typically, plea bargains are legal agreements that are developed between prosecutors and the defenders. In this case, defenders agree to plead guilty either partially or fully in regards to charges leveled against them. This paper will discuss why plea bargaining should not be banned in the United States.
Argue For Plea Bargains
Plea bargains allow prosecutors to agree with defenders in reducing the degree or punishment originally intended for defenders. This is accomplished by reducing the severity or number of charges that may be accorded to the defenders. In addition, plea bargains allow both parties to make recommendations such as for defenders to receive reduced sentences. However, it is important to note that some specific plea bargains require the defenders to do more than just pleading guilty. For instance, prosecutors typically provide favorite plea bargains to some defenders who also agree to make testimonies regarding state cases that have been leveled against other defenders or criminals in the society.
Plea bargains should not be banned in the United States also because it allows judicial stakeholders to work in unison regarding specific cases. This means that both defenders and the prosecutors are allowed to work with judges in the process of making determinations in regards to the type of sentence that should be offered to defenders (Legal Information Institute 1). This is only if they agree to accept a plea bargains. This means that individuals in the society who have committed felonies in the state are able to accept their mistakes as well as punishment for their actions. However, it is important to note that in many cases, the roles and responsibilities of judges is seen to be limited. For instance, federal judges tend to retain the ultimate authority regarding sentencing decisions. This means that they are not bound by prosecutors’ specific recommendations.
It is important to note that plea bargains tend to reduce state resources that could otherwise be spent on long and tedious cases. For instance in the case of Robert M. Brandy vs. United States, both the prosecutors and the defender agreed to a plea bargain. Brandy was charged with kidnapping, which is a violation of 18 U.S. 120(a) statutes (Legal Information Institute 1). The petitioner was risking a maximum death penalty since the actual action was not liberated unharmed. Through his counsel, the petitioner agreed to a plea bargain that resulted to reduced sentences of 50 years that were later reduced to 30 years. This is a classic case where the state could have used more resource since the trial judges were not willing to try it without a jury (Legal Information Institute 2).
In addition, it is important to note that plea bargains should not be banned because they are constitutional. This means that defender’s guilty pleas are usually voluntary in nature such as in the case of Brandy vs. United States. This means that the defenders only agree to plea bargains after fully understanding the consequences of such actions.
In summary, given that they are regarded as contracts between prosecutors and defenders, prosecutors are not bound by any agreed deal if the defenders break their side of bargains. Additionally, a defender is allowed to seek some form of relief if the prosecutor negates their side of bargain.
Legal Information Institute. Case of Robert M. Brandy vs. United States. Accessed through> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/397/742. Date Accessed. August 1, 2017. Web