Plea bargain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Criminal procedure |
|---|
| Investigating and charging crimes |
| Criminal investigation |
| Arrest warrant · Search warrant |
| Probable cause · Knock and announce |
| Exigent circumstance |
| Search and seizure · Arrest |
| Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.) |
| Grand jury |
| Criminal prosecution |
| Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi |
| Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law |
| Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition |
| Habeas corpus · Bail |
| Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system |
| Charges and pleas |
| Arraignment · Indictment |
| Plea · Peremptory plea |
| Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain |
| Presentence Investigation |
| Related areas of law |
| Criminal defenses |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
| Civil procedure |
| Portals: Law · Criminal justice |
A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest (and often allocute) in exchange for some agreement from the prosecutor as to the punishment. A plea bargain can also include the prosecutor agreeing to charge a lesser crime (also called reducing the charges), and dismissing some of the charges against the defendant.
Contents |
[edit] United States
Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States—the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial[1][2]. Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different States and jurisdictions have different rules. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts.
[edit] Claims in favor of plea bargaining
One of the key arguments in favor of plea bargains is that they help courts and prosecutors manage caseloads. In the United States, defendants have a right to a speedy trial under both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as by statute. The meaning of "speedy" is not fixed in terms of a specified amount of time but is determined according to the circumstances. However, if the speedy trial is not held, the case is dismissed and the defendant cannot again be charged with the crime. (See: Double Jeopardy) By plea bargaining, prosecutors can reduce the number of cases set for trial so that cases do not get dismissed.
Thus it can be argued that the American criminal justice system would simply cease to function without plea bargaining, and that it forms a framework wherein the accused and his accusers can reach an agreement which settles the case once and for all, in what is hoped will be a spirit of fairness.
Another reason plea bargains are favored is that it allows criminals who accept responsibility for their actions to receive consideration for their remorse and for not causing limited resources to be expended in further investigating and litigating their case.
In other cases, a defendant may be culpable in one criminal matter, but have information that would help in prosecuting a broader or more significant matter. In such a case, prosecutors may agree to reduced charges or sentencing in the first matter, in exchange for the defendant's cooperation (e.g. testimony) in prosecuting the larger matter.
In still other cases, prosecutors may be certain of the guilt of the defendant in a matter, but the admissible or available evidence might not be enough to convince a jury of the defendant's guilt. This could be the result of a witness or victim dying prior to trial or certain evidence being lost or ruled inadmissible. In those situations it can be of benefit to both the prosecutor and the defendant to arrange a plea bargain; the prosecutor avoids the chance that the defendant could be found not guilty and the defendant avoids the chance that he or she could be found guilty of more serious charges or given a heavier punishment.
Plea bargaining also allows prosecutors to settle cases without forcing a victim to endure a lengthy court process or have to testify in a jury trial. This can be particularly important in cases involving fragile witnesses or victims (young children in sexual abuse cases, elderly people who have been victimized by relatives, seriously ill people and others).
[edit] Claims in opposition to plea bargaining
Critics of the system claim that the plea bargain system can put pressure on defendants to plead to crimes that they know that they did not commit, and that the outcome of a plea bargain may depend strongly on the negotiating skills and personal demeanor of the defense lawyer, which puts persons who can afford good lawyers at an advantage.
Furthermore, critics claim that the system can encourage prosecutors to overcharge at the start of a case which leads to caseload pressures or unusually severe penalties; one claimed example is young murderer Lionel Tate who received a lengthy sentence for killing a young girl. Finally, many jurists, especially in civil law nations, find the notion of plea bargaining contrary to the purpose of the law in which a specific action should be associated with a specific penalty. The introduction of a version of plea bargaining was highly controversial in France, see below.
Lastly, the plea bargain may itself carry unintended ramifications. In some situations, notably where illegal immigrants are defendants in the United States, pleading guilty to a felony in a plea bargain should result in the criminal being deported. Because a state judge has no influence over immigration decisions by the federal government, an illegal immigrant charged with a crime may take a plea bargain, plead guilty, and consequently be deported by the federal government for committing (among other reasons) a "crime of moral turpitude." It should be noted, however, that such deportation would also result if the defendant were convicted at trial and that part of entering a guilty plea is an admission under oath that the defendant did in fact commit the crime, so considering this to be an argument against plea bargaining is somewhat dubious. Such unintended or unforseen effects of either a plea bargain or conviction at trial are sometimes called the collateral consequences of criminal charges.
[edit] Other Common Law Jurisdictions
In some common law jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, and Victoria, Australia, plea bargaining is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.
[edit] India
Plea bargaining was introduced in India by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced a new chapter XXI(A)in the code which is enforceable from January 11, 2006. This affects cases in which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for seven years; however, offenses affecting the socio-economic condition of the country and offenses committed against a woman or a child below the age of fourteen are excluded.
[edit] Pakistan
Plea Bargain as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law.Special feature of this plea bargain is that the accused applies for it accepting his guilt and offers to return the proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators/prosecutors. After endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau the request is presented before the court which decides whether it should be accepted or not. In case the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands convicted but is neither sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. He is disqualified to take part in elections, hold any public office, obtain a loan from any bank and is dismissed from service if he is a government official.
[edit] Plea bargaining in civil law countries
Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses, that confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though he presented a full confession. Also unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Furthermore, many civil law jurists consider the concept of plea bargaining to be abhorrent, seeing it as reducing justice to barter.
The introduction of a limited form of plea bargaining (plaider coupable) was highly controversial in France. In this system, the public prosecutor could propose to suspects of relatively minor crimes a penalty not exceeding one year in prison; the deal, if accepted, had to be accepted by a judge. Opponents, most specifically attorneys and left-wing parties, argued that plea bargaining would gravely infringe on the rights of defense, the long-standing constitutional right of presumption of innocence, the rights of suspects in police custody, and the right to a fair trial. [1][2][3] For instance, Robert Badinter argued that plea bargaining would give too much power to the public prosecutor, and would incite defendants to accept a sentence simply to avoid the risk of a bigger sentence in a trial, even if they did not really deserve it.
Estonia is another country where plea bargaining has been introduced in the 90s allowing to reduce penalty in exchange for confession and avoiding most of the court proceedings. In that country plea bargaining is permitted for the crimes punishable by no more than 4 years of imprisonment. Normally one third reduction of penalty is given.[citation needed]
In Italy, the procedure of pentito (litt. "he who has repented") was first introduced during the "years of lead" for counter-terrorism purposes, and generalized during the Maxi Trial against the Mafia in 1986-1987. The procedure has been contested, as since pentiti received lighter sentences as long as they supplied information to the magistrates, they have been accused, in some cases, of deliberately misleading the Italian justice.
[edit] See also
- Michael Gorr and Sterling Harwood, Controversies in Criminal Law, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992.
- Prisoner's dilemma
[edit] External links
- Plea bargaining comes into effect-India Law: A new chapter - Chapter XXI A - on `plea bargaining' has been inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code (1973)
[edit] References
- ^ Plea Bargains Findlaw.com]
- ^ Interview with Judge Michael McSpadden PBS interview, December 16, 2003
