Should Plea Bargaining be allowed?

Question

Why or why not?

Answer 1

I want to say yes and no. My yes would be because the parents of the victims or the victims themselves won't have to go through the pain of a trial where everything is brought back up and they have to relive what happened. The no would be because, they can even convince innocent people to take a plea and lie to them about the sentence they will receive. Yes, attorneys do lie to their clients.

Answer 2

NO, because it leads to some real nasty, guilty people to get off or get minimum sentence.

YES, in some instances it saves a pile of $$$ and sometimes give law enforcement some info on previous crimes.

THere should be a category of crimes where plea bargain should not even be considered. The same goes to pleading guilty to a lesser offence to avoid a harsh penalty.

I say give them a fair trial and then apply the sentence in full.

Answer 3

Yes, in most cases the prosecutor only goes down to what he/she can prove anyway. It saves the courts time and money. Instead of going through a trial that costs the state 1 - 2 million dollars(yes it really does cost this much for each trial) when you plea bargin the cost is about 10 grand.... 1% of the cost of a trial...if every case we had were to goto trial, then guess what alot of criminals would be set free... why? because the consitution guarentees a fair and SPEEDY trial.

Answer 4

No, not at all. I don't really like lawyers. They will do anything to win a case. With plea bargaining everyone wins, including the criminal. It's even worse in murder cases...

I also believe in the death penalty, so my answer reflects that....

Answer 5

it truly is an major evil, below 2 situations, and is unavoidable. scenario a million: 4 nitwits shoot Washington Redskins cornerback Sean Taylor in his homestead in Florida. they are stuck. The police separate them, study them their rights and tell each and each that there'll be a deal for the driving force, the guy who became no longer in the homestead and did not shoot the sufferer. That criminal might want to properly be charged with homicide below an organization criminal duty idea, yet is obtainable the prospect to plead accountable to, say, housebreaking in substitute for his testimony. scenario 2: Busy criminal court docket arraignment consultation in virtually any county in u.s., yet fairly on the city counties. The DA's workplace and the customary public defender's workplace are beaten. The DA is providing interest at sentencing in substitute for accountable pleas. If the case is going on to the subsequent level, the sentence requested likely will be longer, only through assistant DA's aggravation aspect in having to regulate the case. The defendants likely were stuck by the police in the act with the products in highway crimes, many times drug proper. it truly is in anybody's activity, the overworked assistant DA, the beaten and extraordinarily unpopular assistant public defender, the defendant, and the sufferers, to get the fool convicted and sentenced and get on with existence. the in reality human beings no longer playing this interest are the defendants with 3 strikes who've no bargains provided to them. Even murderers are provided manslaughtered or homicide 2 to get them convicted and imprisoned. it truly is envisioned that ninety 5% of all criminal situations are resolved by accountable pleas previously trial. It all of them went to trial, the equipment might want to melt down.

Answer 6

No, I don't think so, because it allows people to get lesser punishments for crimes that they did that deserve harsher punishements. It lets people commit crimes knowing that they will probably get off the hook completely or at least get a reduced sentence if they agree to something stupid. Someone who deliberately murdered someone, and it is known by others that this person wanted to kill the other person, and then the person who committed murder says that they were 'thinking about killing that person" or "trying to kill that person" and in the end they get away with murder!

Answer 7

Yes. without it, the courts would be gridlocked. Nothing would ever get done. Many more criminals would be out on bail & many more innocent people would be living under a cloud.

Answer 8

over 90% of all cases are resolved without the need for a trial court.

if this were eliminated it would take years to have routine cases heard.

Answer 9

sure, our jails are full.