Introduction
Providing a quick and reasonable trial is an individual right that all judicial systems must ensure they achieve in whatever circumstances. Although many judicial systems struggle to achieve this, many cases handled by their courts have been great impediments in achieving this; hence, the application of plea-bargaining as a mechanism of lessening time and tediousness associated with the handling of numerous cases. Plea bargaining guarantees an individual’s quick handling of their cases; hence reducing the risks associated with facing the real trial. Although this might be the case, it is important to note that, in many ways, the plea-bargaining issue in many ways hinders the achievement of justice depending on the nature of the case that the judicial system is supposed to handle.
Plea Bargaining
Plea bargaining is an enticement for individuals to accept liability for criminal offenses they are accused of by the prosecution. Depending on the nature of the case involved; on the side of criminal offense perpetrators, the entire process of accepting guiltiness is beneficial. However, to individuals who are innocent, it violates their justice rights. When it comes to the justice systems, plea bargains have both negative and positive effects, which primarily depend on the nature of the criminal offense an individual is facing.
For judicial systems to achieve their mandate; offering a fair trial to all individuals through the passing of appropriate judgments on committed criminal offenses, a case has to undergo all the required procedures. That is, the evidence provided acts as the main basis of such judgments. In many ways, the whole idea is beneficial to the defendant, a factor that depends on the nature of the case involved. For example, if individuals are very sure they committed a heinous criminal offense, which if convicted can cost them long jail terms, they can opt to accept a plea bargain because it assures them of a lesser jail term or sentence. However, the case is different when it comes to the individuals who are facing criminal accusations they never committed. This is due to the fact that most individuals fear facing trial because of the unpredictability of court outcomes.
In most cases, these practice jeopardizes the main goals of judicial systems; the achievement of justice. Take an example of a case where an individual is facing rape and robbery with a violence criminal case. Because these crimes have associated long jail terms majority of individuals will opt to take the “shortcut” by accepting liability of such crimes when presented with a bargaining plea; depending on the nature of the evidence given in court for acceptance of liability. Although there are clear provisions on when courts should accept such plea bargains, sometimes the evidence for such acceptances may be strong providing an evading path from justice (Walker, 1993, pp. 81-83). The same scenario occurs; hindrance of justice, when it comes to individuals accused of criminal offenses they never committed. Considering the nature of complexities and unpredictability associated with criminal procedures; a factor compounded by fear of facing bigger charges, although individuals might be innocent, most individuals prefer this option. In many ways, this can hinder justice achievement because the courts will hold individuals liable for a criminal offense they never committed. What most individuals fail to recognize is that acceptance of guiltiness of something they never committed violates their fundamental rights of a fair and just trial. On the other hand, sometimes occurrence of this like a scenario beats logic in that one will be liable for criminal offenses that they never committed (Miller & Gaines, 2009, p. 301)
As walker (1993, pp. 84) adds, owing to the social class differentiation in the society, sometimes this whole practice can be biased hence, lacking when it comes to handling of cases. Depending on the respect that the society accords an individual either Respectable or “Disreputable,” the outcomes of case proceedings vary. This fact is even worse in cases where plea bargaining is one of the options available. This is because in most scenarios, as research shows, plea-bargaining is closely associated with bribery and enticements, something that impedes the achievement of justice. On the other hand, considering the fact that, majority of wealthy individuals have nothing to loose, but rather everything to gain, most of them opt for this option hence the evasion of proper justice in case they have committed heinous crimes that require them to serve very long jail terms.
Although Gorr (2000, pp. 129-132), strongly opposes Kipnis’s argument that, the entire plea bargaining process involves some form of compulsion and intimidation, the entire process can be a forced issue depending on the language used by the prosecution. Hence, in case the acceptance of liability was due to application of some forceful language or threats to an individual, the achievement of justice is in jeopardy. This is because the entire idea violates an individual’s fundamental right of a fair trial or prosecution. Yes, Gorr is right when he argues that, so long as the defendants accepted the suggestion of a plea bargain voluntarily, then the process is valid. However, it is important to note here that, the acceptance of this like a plea is because of some incentive; reduction of the associated prison sentence associated with the crime an individual is facing. In addition, such a practice of enticing voluntary acceptance of guiltiness for reduction of a jail term is morally incorrect hence, making the entire criminal system ineffective in the achievement of justice.
A judicial system can achieve justice if only it encourages the use of truth and evidence toas the main elements of ascertaining the guiltiness of an individual. However, considering circumstances under which the prosecution offers a plea sometimes these two elements have little significance in cases where the prosecution has little or no evidence to back the accusations. The only two options under a plea are for one to testify or remain quiet hence, face trial whose outcomes are unpredictable. Therefore, because one cannot risk losing the case and they are not very sure of the nature of evidence, which the prosecution has, then the only option, which they remain with is to testify. In this regard, because in some situations the testimonies might be pure lies, the whole idea acts as a great impediment to the achievement of justice. This is because, if the judges accept the pleas, then they will base their judgement on wrong or erroneous information as provided by the defendant(s).
On the other hand, it is important to note that, although the plea-bargaining concept helps in speeding the handling of cases by courts hence, ensuring courts deliver justice fast; the entire process denies individuals a constitutional right of having a procedural and fair trial based on evidence collected from the fully conducted investigation. Proper investigation of cases provides incentives that will not only ensure that individuals receive justice as dictated by the law, but also it will ensure a judicial system receives the required trust and respect it deserves from the people it is serving. This is because the real essence of creating a judicial system is to ensure justice prevails in society, something that using of wrong prosecutorial procedure can hinder. In some cases, because individuals can withdraw pleas made, in case they lose their cases at the end, in most cases courts may pass harsher punishments hence, making this entire idea a dangerous undertaking (McCoy, 1993, pp. 88-94).
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the whole idea of plea bargaining has many associated benefits more so to individuals guilty of heinous criminal offenses, the entire process in many ways impedes the achievement of justice. Hence, for the government to make it more useful and an appropriate tool for ensuring justice, there is a need for policy reformulation as concerns plea-bargaining.
References
Gorr, Michael. 2000. The Morality of plea-bargaining. Social Theory and Practice: Tallahassee, 26 (1), 129-152.
McCoy, C. politics and plea-bargaining: Victim’s rights in California. California: University of Pennsylvania Press. Web.
Miller, R. L., & Gaines, K. L. (2009). Belmont: Criminal justice in action. Thomson Wadsworth. Web.
Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: the control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950—1990. New York: Oxford University Press. Web.