how can plea bargaining allowed?

Question

to my understanding, plea bargaining is when you agree to plea guilty to a lesser charge than you are charged with. if this is true, two different people who committed the exact same crime under the exact same circumstances can have different punishments. how is that fair. pretend there is someone who committed murder. the person is being charged with murder and is guilty but this is before the case so he is innocent until proven guilty. he makes a plea bargain and gets less of a punishment than he deserves based on the crime he committed. that also isn't fair. another thing is that if someone agrees to a plea bargain, they obviously are guilty of what they are being charged for, are not confident that they will win the case(which can be b/c of a bad lawyer which goes into my other questionhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AspJiSovQaF61j6__2Z4kWjsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071202192852AAVgcR5) and want to get the least punishment possible.

sean taylor was a free safety

lol funny saying richard

most of you are saying, that it is because they are overwhelmed with cases and don't have time for all the cases, so they just do it to give people a sentence so they can "get that case overwith" while feeling ok about it b/c they were convicted. this might be true but is that legal or ethical. i don't think so. if u agree, then how hasn't anyone done anything about it. if u don't agree, why.

interesting fact about 95% of all criminal cases are resolved by a plea before they are seen at court

Answer 1

Sometimes the Gov't is 'sure' that the person is guilty, but is NOT 'sure' that they can PROVE that he's guilty. Sometimes the person isn't guilty, but isn't sure that he'll be acquitted if he goes to trial.

In such a case, BOTH sides have an incentive to take a deal. The State avoids the risk of a guilty person getting off scot free, and the Innocent person avoids a much more severe punishment.

Every jury trial is a crap shoot. As the old saying goes, when you go to trial, you place your fate in the hands of 12 people who're not even smart enough to get out of jury duty.

Richard

Answer 2

It is a necessary evil, under two circumstances, and is unavoidable.
Scenario 1: Four nitwits shoot Washington Redskins cornerback Sean Taylor in his house in Florida. They are caught. The police separate them, read them their rights and tell each that there will be a deal for the driver, the guy who was not in the house and did not shoot the victim. That criminal could be charged with murder under an enterprise liability theory, but is offered the chance to plead guilty to, say, burglary in exchange for his testimony.
Scenario 2: Busy criminal court arraignment session in virtually any county in America, but especially in urban counties. The DA's office and the public defender's office are overwhelmed. The DA is offering consideration at sentencing in exchange for guilty pleas. If the case goes on to the next stage, the sentence requested likely will be longer, just because of the assistant DA's aggravation level in having to deal with the case. The defendants likely have been caught by the police in the act with the goods in street crimes, often drug related. It is in everyone's interest, the overworked assistant DA, the overwhelmed and highly unpopular assistant public defender, the defendant, and the victims, to get the idiot convicted and sentenced and get on with life. The only people not playing this game are the defendants with 3 strikes who have no deals offered to them. Even murderers are offered manslaughtered or murder 2 to get them convicted and imprisoned. It is estimated that 95% of all criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas before trial. It they all went to trial, the system would melt down.

Answer 3

if you want to get the least sentence possible, bribe the judge. i know of a lot of times that the judges took a bribe. i could go into a long paragraph but i'll make it short. did you ever wonder how o.j. simpson could be found quilty of their deaths but not quilty of murder. then there is the time when the guy who has the drug syndicate here went to "talk" to the judge after the substance in his office was proved to be cocaine. it was retested and decidied it was either flour or powdered sugar. they let him go free. remember, it is not a justice system, it is a lawyers system.
oh ya, i also found out from laywers and the board of judicial standard that judges do not have to follow any laws. they are above the laws of this country.

Answer 4

NO, because of the fact it finally ends up in some genuine nasty, in charge people to get off or get minimum sentence. sure, in some cases it saves a pile of $$$ and now and returned supply regulation enforcement some data on previous crimes. THere could be a classification of crimes the place plea good deal shouldn't additionally be seen. the comparable is going to pleading in charge to a lesser offence to avert a harsh penalty. I say supply them a uncomplicated trial and then be conscious the sentence in finished.

Answer 5

Plea bargaining is valid because the court does not want to try cases if there is already an admission by the suspect.

Answer 6

There are so many criminals that the courts don't care.
If you would shoot the bastards in the head when you arrest them there would be less need for courts and it would save the tax payers a lot of money not to mention there would be less criminals.