Eleanor Finch
Plea bargaining is a common practice in the United States, with the majority of criminal cases being settled by plea bargain rather than jury trial. The constitutionality of plea bargaining was established by Brady v. United States in 1970, with the Supreme Court holding that defendants' guilty pleas must be voluntary and that defendants may only plead guilty if they understand the consequences. Plea bargaining allows defendants to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence or the ability to plead to a lesser offence. However, this practice has been criticised as coercive and as undermining important constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Frequency | 90-95% of cases in the US result in plea bargaining |
| History | Plea bargaining has existed for centuries, with examples in the US as early as the 1700s |
| Court Involvement | Courts' involvement varies by jurisdiction, but they give final approval and federal judges retain authority over sentencing decisions |
| Incentives | Critics argue that incentives are too coercive and undermine constitutional rights |
| Constitutionality | Established by Brady v. United States in 1970, but the Supreme Court warned that sufficiently coercive incentives may be unconstitutional |
| Defendant Rights | Defendants must waive the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses |
| Prosecutor Role | Prosecutors usually agree to reduce charges or recommend reduced sentences |
| Victim Role | Victims cannot mount private prosecutions and have limited influence on plea agreements |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Plea bargaining history in the US
Plea bargaining has existed for centuries, with some of the earliest plea bargains taking place during the 1692 Salem witch trials. Accused witches were told that they would live if they confessed but would be executed if they did not. The Salem magistrates wanted to encourage confessions, and wanted the confessed witches to testify against others. Pleading guilty saved many accused witches from execution.
Plea bargaining was also used in the colonial era, with St. Joan of Arc confessing in 1431 to avoid being burned at the stake (she was ultimately executed after she recanted her confession).
In the 18th century, inducements were forbidden in English Law, and in the early history of the United States, plea bargains were rare. Judges appeared surprised when defendants offered to plead guilty, and they attempted to persuade them to go to trial.
By the 1830s, plea bargains were becoming common in Boston, with public ordinance violators receiving less severe sentences if they pleaded guilty. By 1850, this practice had spread to felony courts, and it became routine for defendants to plead guilty in exchange for the dismissal of some charges or other agreements with the prosecutor.
In the 1960s, plea bargains were treated as unethical or illegal. Defendants who had accepted plea bargains were told not to acknowledge the negotiations in court, but in 1967, an influential report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice documented the widespread use of plea bargaining and recommended recognizing the practice.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a man who had received five death sentences after pleading guilty to five counts of robbery because the trial judge had not ensured that the guilty pleas were voluntary (Boykin v. Alabama). Judges now ensure that guilty pleas are voluntary by querying defendants in court.
In 1970, the constitutionality of plea bargaining was established by Brady v. United States, although the Supreme Court warned that plea incentives which were too large or coercive might be prohibited. By 1984, 84% of federal cases were plea bargains, and this number rose to 94% by 2001.
Cohabitation: When Does It Become a Common-Law Marriage?
You may want to see also
The constitutionality of plea bargaining
Plea bargaining is a common practice in the United States, with the majority of criminal cases being settled by plea bargain rather than jury trial. The constitutionality of plea bargaining was established in Brady v. United States (1970), where the Supreme Court held that plea bargaining is constitutional, provided it does not infringe on a defendant's ability to act freely and does not result in a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty. This decision was further supported by the case of Santobello v. New York, which emphasised the importance of fulfilling promises made by prosecutors during plea bargaining.
However, plea bargaining has been criticised as being too coercive and undermining important constitutional rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court has acknowledged these concerns and has held that defendants' guilty pleas must be voluntary and that defendants must understand the consequences of pleading guilty. In the case of McCarthy v. United States (1969), the Court stated that a plea may be considered involuntary if the accused does not understand the nature of the constitutional protections they are waiving or if they have an incomplete understanding of the charges against them.
The use of plea bargaining has been justified by the need to address the overwhelming influx of criminal cases and conserve resources within the criminal justice system. By allowing defendants to plead guilty to minor offenses and receive lighter sentences, plea bargaining helps prosecutors focus their time and resources on more serious cases and reduces the number of trials that judges need to oversee. However, critics argue that plea bargaining allows defendants to shirk responsibility for their crimes and that it can lead to significant sentencing differentials between those who plead guilty and those who exercise their right to a trial.
To address these concerns, the American Bar Association has adopted guiding principles to ensure that plea practices are consistent with the Constitution and promote a fair and transparent criminal justice system. These principles address issues such as the use of coercive incentives, pretrial detention in plea bargaining, and the provision of adequate discovery before a defendant pleads guilty.
Congress Powers: Law, Money, and Oversight
You may want to see also
The role of the prosecutor
Plea bargaining is a common practice in the United States, with the vast majority of criminal cases being settled by plea bargain rather than jury trial. This has been the case for centuries, and its constitutionality was established by Brady v. United States in 1970.
Prosecutors have a degree of discretion in plea bargaining, and they are not directly involved in all cases. In some jurisdictions, they can work with judges to predetermine the sentence the defendant will receive if they accept a plea bargain. However, federal judges retain final authority over sentencing decisions and are not bound by the prosecutor's recommendations, even if they are part of a plea bargain.
The Supreme Court has held that defendants' guilty pleas must be voluntary, and defendants may only plead guilty if they understand the nature of the constitutional protections they are waiving and the consequences of pleading guilty. If a defendant breaks a plea bargain, it is considered a breach of contract, and the prosecutor is no longer bound by their obligations in the plea deal.
The American Bar Association has recently adopted guiding principles to ensure that plea practices are consistent with the Constitution and promote a fair and transparent criminal justice system. These principles address issues such as coercive incentives, pretrial detention, and the provision of adequate discovery before a defendant pleads guilty.
Citing Constitute: APA Style Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The role of the defendant
Plea bargaining is a common practice in the United States, with the majority of criminal cases being settled by plea bargains rather than jury trials. The defendant plays a crucial role in the plea-bargaining process, as it is their decision to plead guilty and waive certain constitutional rights.
A defendant may choose to plead guilty instead of insisting that the prosecution prove their guilt. This decision is often made as part of a "plea bargain" with the prosecution, where the defendant receives a lighter sentence or is allowed to plead to a lesser offense. By pleading guilty, the defendant waives their right to a jury trial, their right against self-incrimination, and their right to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court has held that defendants' guilty pleas must be voluntary and that defendants must understand the consequences of pleading guilty.
The defendant's role in plea bargaining also involves negotiating with the prosecutor. Plea bargains are treated as contracts between the prosecutor and the defendant. The defendant may agree to plead guilty to some or all of the charges in exchange for concessions from the prosecutor. These concessions usually involve a reduction in the number or severity of charges or a recommendation for a reduced sentence. In some cases, defendants may be required to testify for the state in cases against other defendants as part of the plea bargain.
It is important to note that a defendant's decision to plead guilty may be influenced by various factors, including the potential sentence they face if convicted at trial and the strength of the prosecution's case. Defendants may also consider the impact of a trial on their personal lives and the potential for a plea bargain to result in a quicker resolution to their case.
While plea bargaining can provide benefits to defendants, such as a reduced sentence or the avoidance of additional charges, it is important for defendants to fully understand the implications of their decision. Plea bargaining requires defendants to waive significant constitutional rights, and it is crucial for them to make an informed and voluntary choice.
Marriage and the Constitution: A Complex Relationship
You may want to see also
The role of the judge
Judges are responsible for ensuring that any plea bargain agreement is fair and just. This includes making sure that the defendant understands the nature of the constitutional protections they are waiving and the consequences of pleading guilty. Judges must also ensure that plea bargains are not coercive and do not infringe on the defendant's constitutional rights. If a judge finds that a plea bargain is involuntary or was accepted without a complete understanding of the charges, the judge may allow the defendant to collaterally challenge the guilty plea.
The adversarial nature of the legal system in the United States can sometimes put judges in a passive role, where they are dependent on the parties involved to develop the factual record. This can limit the judge's ability to assess the strength of the case against the defendant and make it easier for the parties to control the outcome of the case by bargaining away their rights.
Judges also have a role in approving plea bargains. While plea bargaining allows prosecutors to focus their time and resources on other cases and reduces the number of trials that judges need to oversee, it is controversial. Some commentators argue that plea bargains allow defendants to avoid taking full responsibility for their crimes. Judges must carefully consider the terms of plea bargains to ensure that they are in the interests of justice.
The Politician's Promise: Oath to the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The constitutionality of plea bargaining was established by Brady v. United States in 1970. However, the Supreme Court has warned that plea incentives that are overly coercive or that lead to a significant number of innocent people pleading guilty may be prohibited or raise constitutional concerns.
Plea bargaining has existed for centuries, with examples in the American criminal justice system as early as the late 1700s. By 1930, over 90% of convictions were based on plea bargaining, but courts were initially reluctant to endorse these arrangements when appealed. In the early 20th century, plea bargaining gained new acceptance as courts and prosecutors sought to address an overwhelming influx of cases.
Some critics argue that plea bargains are too coercive and undermine important constitutional rights. There is also concern about the presence of significant sentencing differentials, with those convicted at trial having a higher likelihood of incarceration and longer sentences compared to those who plead guilty.
