should plea-bargaining be banned?

Question

if the feds,state or local police can not prove their charges , why waste everybodys time and MONEY .

Answer 1

Plea bargaining isn't for when the government cannot prove the case. It's when they CAN prove the case, and want to save time and money.

Answer 2

If every case that is currently plea bargained went to trial, the judicial system would grind to a halt.

Most plea bargains are entered where the Government can prove its case easily and the defendant knows that to put them to their proof would only subject them to higher penalties on additional offenses that the Government probably can prove, but it would be a close call.

Charges that absolutely can not be proved are dismissed. A court will not allow a defendant to plead guilty to a charge that could not be proved.

Plea bargaining saves a staggering amount of time and money.

Answer 3

To open4one, it doesn't work like that.
It's a way to extort money. You face a possible conviction (even if you're innocent) and an expensive court procedure. The plea bargain keeps you out and is cheaper.
Plus, it shows that the DA is doing a great job.

But if you look at it from a global perspective, what good does it make?
It hurts the reputation of innocent people. It's more expensive over all, a productive member of the community gives money to the government. Having good results through plea bargain, the DA has no incentive to go after real crime.

I think it has to be banned.

Answer 4

When you look deeper you can see plea-bargain’s usage, even though sometimes it’s frustrating to hear about in the news. An example which I can think of right now is the deal that some of the guys who helped OJ Simpson in his alleged robbery are getting. In return for a reduced charge of crime, they are agreeing to testify against OJ. This will help the prosecutions case.

Second point: I’m not a lawyer, but I believe sometimes the prosecutor doesn’t feel like he can prove the worst crime to a jury. For instance, suppose the crime was robbery/murder and there were several people involved. The prosecutor is certain that the robbery charge can “stick” but the evidence is sketchy about which criminal was actually the murderer. In those cases, he may choose to reduce the seriousness of the crime, or even go for the different crime in return for the criminal's guilty plea. I guess the authorities figure it’s better to get the criminal off of the street with a lesser charge than to let him get off completely.

Answer 5

Its' not a matter of whether the prosecutor can prove the charges -- it's a matter of whether they really should waste the time and expense of the court when it is so EASY to prove the charges.

The entire point of a plea bargain is that the prosecutor knows they are very likely to win -- but doesn't want to waste the time and cost of the trial -- so they offer a lesser sentence (benefit to the defendant) in bargain/exchange for avoiding the trial (benefit to the state).

Prosecutors don't bring a case even to the pre-trial stage unless they are pretty sure they are going to win -- so, the plea-bargain is not a matter of whether they can prove the charges -- it's just a method to avoid the expense of trial.

Answer 6

This is quite the philosophical question. Plea-bargaining is not an easy debate, so many circumstances where it could be good with some results of people getting disappointed.