99% of all felonies end in a plea bargain. Basically, the suspect pleads guilty (or agrees to end his or her defense) in exchange for receiving a lesser sentence. Do you agree with this practice? Why or why not?
2006-11-01 14:24:49 · 16 answers · asked by Eugene 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Disagree. They did the crime and they need to do the time...all of it!
2006-11-01 14:26:49 · answer #1 · answered by G-pops 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First your statistic is absolutely wrong. A plea bargain is an agreement to allow a defendant to plea to a lesser charge. I.E. You are charged with Murder in the First Degree but the prosecutor offers a Murder in the Second Degree.
It is about a 50% ratio on whether a person pleads to a top charge or a lesser charge on all cases. That percentage is probably less when dealing with felonies.
Generally, a person will get an "offer" when they have a minimal criminal record and the facts of the case warrant less strict punishments.
In most states if a person has been convicted of felonies in the past they could become mandatory offenders and offers are not allowed. And any offer must be approved and accepted by the court. (But the prosecutor could always drop the charges if the court is too hard on the State.)
That being said, it is an absolute necessity in the criminal courts. It is to everyone advantage that the case gets handled before it heads to trial. It saves that state money and time. The general rule is the longer the case goes on, so long as it remains viable, the stiffer the sentence will become. Remember, even on the top charge there is usually a range of potential sentences.
If every case there were no chance of an offer and the defendant was forced to the maximum allowable sentence all cases would go to trial and the courts would grind to a halt under the numbers. There is just not the resources or the money available to do that. And it would not be justice. A first time offender should not be forced to the same sentence as a career criminal.
2006-11-01 14:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by strangedaze23 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YES, I do think that plea bargains are a good idea. They help save a state's time and resources. The plea bargain saves the victim from the emotional distress of going through a trial and having to relive it all over again in front of lots of people. Also, victims sometimes do get a say in the plea bargain. You probably get more people in jail that way - it's easier to find someone guilty when they admit it!!
2006-11-01 14:32:11 · answer #3 · answered by RHB 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No I do not. What happens is people who are actually innocent agree to a plea to make it go away. States attorneys charge them with large amounts of time and then settle for probation. In the mean time real criminals who actually did the crime get shorter sentences. I think the states attorneys office should have to go ahead to trial on 25% of the cases they plea bargain. This will do two things. One, the states attorney wil pick their cases to take to trial and not take up the courts time on bs. Two a lot less innocent pleading guilty to crimes just to go home.
2006-11-01 14:31:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that he who does the crime should do the time....however
I also belive, depending upon the circumstance that some amount of mercy is good and humane to give....
We've all heard heinous stories like a child getting hit by a car because the driver wasn't paying attention......Justice is good but do you really think the driver should go to jail for the rest of his life serving a murderer's sentence? Terrible tradgedies will happen in life...there's no changing that. But it could just as easily be me or you from which that mistake may come.
2006-11-01 14:35:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The guilty never serve the time they deserve. If there is enough evidence to convict then convict for the crime committed. I know it saves money to allow plea bargins but is money saving what the justice system is all about? Plus the prosecuting attys use this just to improve their track record. Higher guilty rates. Doesnt really matter if the person did it or not just need the notch on their belt.
2006-11-01 14:28:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
At the moment plea bargaining looks wrong or unfair to me...but if I am the one at the receiving end, then I would definately see it as right......different people with different situation would view this differently.
2006-11-01 19:57:08 · answer #7 · answered by nastik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If somone is stoopid enough to commit a crime and get caught, let em cop a plea. It saves on Court Costs, Juries, Appeals and puts the criminal in the system, where they belong.
2006-11-01 14:34:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
it is a necessary evil to keep the overburdened legal system running. also the defendant, while guilty, has the chance of going free in a jury trial. so, it ensures that criminals get at least some jail time for their offenses.
2006-11-01 14:27:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes - otherwise defendants would wait years for a jury trial, victims would wait longer for closure, county jails would overcrowd, people waiting for trial would wear tracking devices and have the opportunity to reoffend - especially rapists and child sex predators, etc.
2006-11-01 14:27:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
yes because it save tax payer money in court cost most use a public defender for thier case that cost the tax payer
2006-11-01 14:34:18 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋