How do you feel about the fact that 95% of criminal cases result in a plea bargain?

Answer 1

On one hand, it is very disconcerting. On the other hand, it promotes efficiency in the sentencing of criminals. The problem is that most of them lack appropriate representation and they end up getting sold a bill of goods in the plea bargain. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge someone with a large laundry list of crimes in order to say that they will get them sentenced for 20-30 years when they barely have enough evidence to arguably support the underlying crime. For example, tt is very easy to throw "conspiracy" charges on top nearly any alleged crime which involves more than one person. Any crime against a protected class can have a "civil rights" violation or "hate crime" violation stacked on top of the underlying violation to make the potential sentence look scary to the accused. As such, the accused feels like he is getting a good deal on the plea when he may actually be getting screwed.

Answer 2

I feel pretty good about it. It speeds up the process significantly, otherwise tax payers will end-up paying thousands more to pay for the trial. In most cases (especially when there is a public defender representing the defendant, i.e. over worked and under paid and don't really care if their client gets the best possible judgement) the accused gets a sentence they would have gotten if the case had gone to trial (sometimes a plea bargain actually ends up in a harsher sentence when compared to similar cases that have gone to trial). So, basically, a plea bargain saves both time and money for all parties involved. The only cases that are at and advantage to go to trial involve people who can afford a good lawyer to represent them and thus can get a better judgement then a plea bargain could ever offer them.

Answer 3

Well 95% of cases were better off plea bargining. The reason is lawyers costs money, and Judges have limited time on there hand for each case, Proscuters have incomplete evidence, and the accused would have plea bargin than waste a days in court. Its better a lot of times cases end up in Plea bargins because it saves the taxpayer money, and would you want to be paid 40 dollars a day to go a jury trail for a person fighting a speeding ticket???? The fine is sometimes cheaper to pay out than it is to hire lawyer and fight the charges. Figure, most people know there guility and its not worth getting a lawyer or public defender to waste time to reduce a fine that ends up costing you more than paying the fine itself.

Answer 4

I feel the process keeps the judicial process from collapsing altogether (fair and SPEEDY trial, after all).

I also believe it results in police and prosecutors over-charging for crimes so they can plea bargain down to what they want, and for criminals to lie and provide false or questionable information to get a better deal. Justice is not served as well as it should.

Answer 5

Plea bargains should be entirely outlawed. here's the 2 reasons I see. 1) If the criminal is guilty they should be held fully responsible for their crime and 2) If the accused claims to be not guilty then the court looks at them more harshly because they chose to try to prove that they are not guilty.

Answer 6

It's a great balance between the needs of society to have people who break the law pay a penalty and the rights of the accused to a trial.

Compare the state of our criminal justice system now as opposed to if EVERY SINGLE defendant wanted a trial...The wheels of justice would grind to a halt...

Answer 7

Plea bargains mean easier convictions and less taxpayer dollars spent trying to convict someone.

Answer 8

I think it's terrible. That's exactly what's happening with the likely winner of the Gubernatorial race here in Colorado...Bill Ritter...MOST of his cases ended in plea bargains, including illegals who committed HORRIBLE crimes! VOTE FOR BOB BEAUPREZ FOR GOVERNOR IN COLORADO!