Plea Bargaining and Plea Negotiation in the Judicial System

Abstract

This paper analyzes plea bargaining and plea negotiation in the American judicial system. Plea bargaining refers to informal negotiations leading to an agreement under which the accused enters a plea of guilty in exchange for a reduced charge or favorable sentence recommendation by, the prosecutor in criminal court cases. This type of plea negotiation is not recognized in the legal statutes and operates by a subsystem of "invisible" controls. Plea bargaining is a permanent fixture in our legal system to the extent that at present, the courts cannot operate without it. Studies are a~alyzed which reveal that seventy-five percent and perhaps as many as ninety-five percent of all criminal cases do not go to a jury trial, and a substantial number of these cases involve a negotiated bargain. Four types of bargaining or negotiation are discussed. These usually involve bargaining to reduce a sentence; to show leniency in sentencing; to settle for a lesser charge or one charge for a variety of offenses; or to drop charges entirely. Contrary to popular belief, plea bargaining has become ingrained in our legal system because offenders and agencies such as police departments, prosecutor's offices, and the courts benefit from its use. It can be efficient, time saving and less risky to the parties involved. Specific benefits to the offender, prosecution, defense, and judges are mentioned. It is also noted, however, that the accused may fare better in a jury trial. Arguments for and against plea bargaining are presented. Key elements of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (Task Force Report: The Courts) relating to plea bargaining is reviewed. The conclusion drawn is that bargain justice has become a necessity in our present legal system. However, substantial change must occur within the near future to bring official recognition and control in plea bargaining and to protect the rights of those involved.