From the movie, The Plea , I have learned various things about plea bargaining and the role that different parties play to ensure that this legal provision is successful. The video enhances the texts and materials that we have learned in class. It creates a real-life scenario based on experiences of different players who are in one way or another involved in the plea-bargaining process. Similarly, the video is very informative as it demonstrates the interaction between the defendant, the prosecutor, and even a judge. The experts in the legal profession, especially those in the United States' criminal justice system, are also engaged in trying to conceptualize plea bargains, their significances and necessities in the judicial system, and the shortcomings of the same. This paper provides an opinion of what I have learned from the video about the whole process of plea bargaining. Also, the paper reflects on different reasons as to why plea bargains happen, different players of the process, and criticism of the provision. After watching the video, I now understand that there are various reasons for a plea bargain in a judicial system. Interestingly, according to the video, only five percent of criminal cases go for trial. The remaining 95% is settled out of courts as the accused persons are, in one way or another, convinced to take a plea. According to Heumann (2020) , the plea bargain process entails the agreement between the State and the defendant of a criminal case to plead guilty. The accused is convinced to plead guilty, which would see him enjoy some 'privileges' such as reducing sentence terms. The movie shows that the accused are promised lesser sentence terms if they plead guilty. For instance, in the case of Charles Gampero Jr., the accused is pressured to plead guilty instead of moving forward to trial by jury. The judge pressurizes him to plead guilty, and in return, he will be accorded with lesser sentence terms of seven years. When talking to the father, the judge made it clear that, if found guilty, Gampero Jr. would serve twenty-five years in prison. It was a relief from the father's side to take a plea realizing that he will see his son seven years later instead of twenty-five years. Therefore, I have learned that fear and relief that comes with the deal drive most accused persons to enter a plea bargain deal. Another reason that I have learned from the video that makes plea bargain necessary is the efficiency of case backlog reduction. The plea bargain provision is significant as it facilitates a lot of criminal cases in the courts and, therefore, reduces backlog. I have also come to appreciate the conditions of the United States' judicial system, which is overwhelmingly understaffed. In the movie, Judge Caprice Cosper admits that the judicial system would collapse if all the criminal cases were brought forward for prosecution before the jury. Similarly, he outlines that there are many criminal cases filed, and therefore, the plea bargains come in handy to try and settle some of these cases out of court. Apart from these reasons, I have enhanced my knowledge about the criticism of the plea bargain provision or how it manifests in the United States' judicial system. This system sees judges and prosecutors pressurizing an accused person to taking a plea, whether he or she is guilty or not. Out of fear, like in Gampero Jr.'s case, an individual could be tempted to accept the deal even if, in reality, he would likely win the case before the jury. A person might end up serving a sentence despite being innocent, like in Stewart's case. In her case, Stewart undergoes unnecessary costs of pleading guilty, despite being innocent, such as paying a monthly probation fee. Through Stewart's confession, I have learned that plea bargain can easily be corrupted to be unfair to the innocent individuals who go through the system. According to the movie, different players are involved in the process of the plea bargain. Every person or office has a distinctive role to play before and when offering a plea bargain to a defendant. In the case of Charles Gampero, who was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, the judge played an essential role in ensuring that the defendant took a plea bargain. The judge told the defendant's parents that he would get 25 years to life if he did not take the plea bargain. Such a move made the parents think that the judge would be lenient if the defendant took the plea bargain. In the end, there was no difference, even though the defendant insisted on his innocence. The victim's family also made claims of their kin being harassed, but this was not considered. The above case shows that when the players involved want a defendant to take a plea, they will go to any length to ensure their goal is achieved. According to the video, the people who do not take the plea bargain are often treated harshly with a harsh prison sentence. They are used to serve as an example to future defendants who might want to refuse to take a deal. This shows how broken the system has become. In my opinion, the prosecutors play a significant role in offering the plea bargain to the defendants. The prosecutors convince the defendants and trick them that they may be released immediately the sign the plea bargain. In the case of patsy Kelly Jarret, the prosecutors convinced her to plead guilty to robbery charges even though there was no evidence against her. She was offered a five to 15-year jail term if she would take the deal. Even though they knew there was no evidence, they were determined to have her serve a prison sentence. After Jarret refused the deal and went ahead with the jury's case, she was shocked that they did not believe her and was handed 25years in prison. Jarret thought that the jury would believe her because there was no evidence that she was involved in the robbery. However, Jarrett was shocked at the sentence she was handed. Even after spending twelve years in prison and convincing a prison warden of her innocence, the state still offered her another plea bargain, which she turned down again. The state used her refusal to convince the jury, and her initial sentence was upheld. According to Jarret's case, there is no morality in admitting that you did something to convince a few people. Jarret says that if she had taken the plea, she would have lived with it haunting her forever. In her push for justice, Jarret finally granted parole, which shows how difficult it is to convince others of their innocence. According to my view, lawyers to the defendant have also been accomplices in the plea bargain issue. In the video, the lawyers help convince the defendants without outlining all the contents of the bargaining plea. In the case of Emma Faye Stewart, it would have been easier if she had been told her plea bargain's real contents. In her case, she was arrested on the information from an informant who was later declared uncredible. In her case, she wanted to be released because she wanted to take care of her son. Therefore, Stewart agreed to a plea agreement that did not disclose to her that in her 10years probation, she would be paying a certain amount of money to her probation officer. She would also not get federal food stamps, which are a reprieve for people like her. If her attorney had given her all the details for the release, there is a chance Stewart could have refused. Even if she had accepted, she would not be feeling cheated. The plea bargain, in some cases, works, but it does not work in all cases. There should be transparency, and the rights of the defendants should be considered. The persons involved should focus not only on easing their work but also on serving justice for all.
References
Frontline. (2004). The Plea [Video]. Retrieved 31 October 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/showsplea/.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Heumann, M. (2020). Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys . University of Chicago Press.
