Exceptions are often created in most practical issues based on the existence of exigent circumstances, but when the exception becomes the norm, then there is a definitive problem. Plea bargaining in the US was introduced as an exception to the general rule in criminal procedures. The US criminal procedure is based on an adversarial system that utilizes a jury of the defendant’s peers, who have to decide whether or not the defendant is guilty (Durocher, 2018). The adversarial system pits the defendant on the one side, backed up by every benefit of the doubt and the government law enforcement apparatus on the other. Plea bargaining entails the parties involved in a criminal case, being the state and the defendant, foregoing trial to agree on a consensus (Yoffe, 2017). The consensus involves the defendant pleading guilty to one or more of the charges in exchange for a lighter sentence or some other consideration. The primary grounds for plea bargains is to save the state the exponential cost that goes with a full trial and also allow the defendant more latitude on the outcome of the case. In some cases, the state also uses plea bargains to get evidence from a defendant about a more important case (Durocher, 2018). In the instant essay, an evaluation of available research and commentary about plea bargains will be made with a view to show that having plea bargains as the norm, rather than the exception is detrimental to the US criminal justice process.
Historical Background
The basic foundation of modern plea bargaining can be traced back to the case of Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 25 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1970) whose decision formed the foundation of plea bargains in America. The law provided that giving an incentive to a defendant to get a guilty plea cannot be considered as prosecutorial misconduct as it does not amount to coercion or undue influence. As part of its holding, the court ruled that: “ This mode of conviction is no more foolproof than full trials to the court or to the jury ” (Brady v. United States, 1970). The statement elevated plea bargain to the same position as judge trials or jury trials by implying that they all had their respective flaws, which can be cured by courts of law. After the trial above, the 1970s and 1980s saw a gradual but definitive rise in the rates of plea bargains. At the advent of the 1990s, the federal government implemented a change of policy to curb the rise in crimes driven by narcotics-based organized crimes. A high influx of both drugs and related violence was seen in the USA: “ Regular confrontations began between rival trafficking groups and also against the police within urban areas of several cities ” (Puyana et al., 2017, p. 310). The resultant war on drugs overwhelmed the criminal justice system which could no longer cope with the numbers of arrests and trials.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The overwhelmed criminal justice system in the 1990s found respite in plea bargaining as more trials were put off in favor of guilty pleas and reduced sentences. Contemporaneously, plea bargains became a popular form of investigating organized crimes where junior gang members would get minimized sentences to implicate their seniors. The rates of plea bargains rose exponentially with an overwhelming majority of cases resulting in plea bargains by the advent of the 21 st century. All seemed to have been going well until the second decade of the 20 th century when social justice proponents began to notice that plea bargains were being used to propagate injustices. Poor people and minorities were losing out while the affluent and majorities within specific communities were benefiting from plea bargains. The situation was inter alia is driven by the fact that: “ At the state and local level where the criminal process most commonly plays out, District Attorneys and Judges are elected ” (Hill, 2017, p. 73). The exception had become a norm and eventually, the new norm had become a problem that was gradually degenerating into a crisis.
Statistics
Available statistics with regard to plea bargains in America will definitively confirm the contention that the US criminal justice system is degenerating into a crisis. According to Durocher (2018): “ Today, more than 95 percent of cases that resolve in a conviction is the result of plea bargains ”. 51% can be considered a majority while 80% can be considered as an overwhelming majority but 95% can only be termed as an absolute majority with the remaining 5% that go for the full trial being almost negligible. It would thus be correct to state that law enforcement works under the assumption that 100% of their cases will result in a plea bargain, with any trials that ensue amounting to an exception to the general rule. However, about three decades ago, plea bargains amounted to less than 5% of all criminal cases in America.
Stakeholders
The primary stakeholder in the subject of plea bargains is the general public in their position as tax-payers. It is the taxpayer who foots the bill for the criminal justice system and is thus owed a fair return for the investment made. The second stakeholder is the defendant, more so the minority defendant who is bound to be adversely affected by plea bargaining (Durocher, 2018). A third stakeholder is the criminal justice system, at the federal level, the state level, and the local level whose employs play the jury role in plea bargains. The fourth stakeholders are the judges who work in the criminal justice system and have been transformed from trial adjudicators to some kinds of go-betweens in plea bargain agreements. Finally, most crimes have victims who also deserve justice and their right to justice is also affected, adversely or otherwise, by plea bargains (Yoffe, 2017).
Debates and Controversies
Plea bargaining, having moved from an exception to the norm has become a debate, disagreement and in some cases, controversial. The debate mainly lies in the pro et contra nature of plea bargaining with some arguing that it is inevitable while others argue that it is a travesty. Those who argue inevitability focus on the fact that the US taxpayer cannot bear the cost trying all the 95% cases that are settled through plea bargaining (Durocher, 2018). The other side of the debate engenders the argument that the adversarial system of justice exists for a reason and plea bargaining is contrary to the philosophy under which the criminal justice system was established. The controversy relating to plea bargaining has even superseded the debate, more so with regard to plea bargains for people who cannot afford a good attorney: “…public defenders are nothing more than “public pretenders” who are “paid to plead [their clients] guilty .” (Yoffe, 2017). Because of plea bargains, America has the largest ratio of incarceration among all the developed countries in the world.
Conclusion
Whereas available research and commentary clearly show the path that plea bargaining developed from an exception into the norm and from the norm into a crisis, there is no indication as to why this happened. The criminal justice system in America is over three centuries old yet modern plea bargaining only gained traction slightly over two decades ago. It begs the question of what is driving plea bargaining because it is only when the cause is properly understood that a solution for the crisis can be found. Could the cause be the existence of too many too stiff laws, racial and calls discrimination in the criminal justice system, government spending being prioritizatized, or just laxity and lethargy among criminal justice agents? Plea bargaining is a problem that is degenerating into a crisis and solving the problem depends on understanding its causes.
References
Brady v. United States , 397 U.S. 742, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 25 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1970)
Durocher, C. W. (2018, June 13). The rise of plea bargains and fall of the right to trial. Retrieved from https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-rise-of-plea-bargains-and-fall-of-the-right-to-trial/
Hill, M. L. (2017). Bargained. In Nobody: Casualties of America's war on the vulnerable, from Ferguson to Flint and beyond . New York: Simon and Schuster.
Puyana, J. C., Puyana, J. C. J., Rubiano, A. M., Montenegro, J. H., Estebanez, G. O., Sanchez, A. I., & Vega-Rivera, F. (2017). Drugs, violence, and trauma in Mexico and the USA. Medical principles and practice , 26 (4), 309-315
Yoffe, E. (2017, August 07). Innocence is irrelevant. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/
