In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system.

Pick a side, the topic is "In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system."

I'll post an argument soon.

 

In a way they do because they provide an excuse to do less time for the same crime as someone who is not willing to admit it. At the same time though, the governments reasoning behind this is that if I commit a crime then admit to it I realize that what I did was wrong and by making a plea agreement that says I am on my way to recovering.(first step to recovery is denial second is acknowledging your in denial and asking for help hence a "plea") In todays age though they are mearly used to try and get the person put in prison/jail faster without the expenses of a trial. Which is a shortcut.

 

There is no argument, the title of this thread is fact and I would LOVE to see somebody argue that.

 

The thread title is basically the truth.

It helps people that only tell part of the truth get off with an easier sentence if they tell the rest of the truth.

In my eyes, if they're not willing to talk the first time, throw their ass in jail

 

I completely agree with the thread title, the people who they make these agreements get off WAY too easy, their sentence should only be slightly reduced compared to who they rat out in the plea deal.

 

This is a valid argument. The purpose of the CJS is to correct wrongdoers, so is the purpose of jail and sentencing. Look at it like this - the government is rewarding those who acknowledge their crimes and saving them the trouble and money. This also allows courts to pursue more serious cases with more attention. In addition, by their plea of guilt, the chances of mistrial are lowered, ultimately bringing about a more accurate justice system.

At the end of the day, isn't the purpose of the CJS to correct wrongdoers? What difference is a 10 year sentencing to a 9 year sentencing? What really matters is certainty of punishment and fear of second-time offenses.

 

I'm familiar with the Canadian Justice system being from Canada. From what I see the systems are quite similar but Canada holds much more leniant sentences for similar crimes. I watch American shows like COPS and you guys dish out some serious sentences for drug related offences compared to Canada.

Back tothe main topic.... The plea bargain is used by prosecuters because police always charge criminals excessively with crimes that do not hold enough evidence to get a conviction. If they arrest you on one charge they often will keep stacking as many related charges as they can. Prosecuters have to actually prove the charges which is often a lot more difficult and not worth going to trial for if they don't think there is sufficient evidence. Realistically it takes a lot of evidence to convict a criminal of a crime; inocent until proven guilty; amd must be found guilty without any reasonable doubt.

I've seen people beat charges of break and enter when their finger prints were found on an empty liquor bottle inside the house.... Why???? Because the lawyer convinced the judge that it was possible the man touched the liquor bottle while it was still in the liquor store on the shelf..... Highly unlikely, right? But possible; and that's all it takes.... The posibilty that a person did not commit a crime. Look at OJ.

Also, like anything else...Money rules the world. Cash can buy you your freedom. Prosecuters are friends with defence lawyers. If you're willing to pay your lawyer enough he can can get you off almost anything. On the same hand...if your sitting in jail and hoping duty council or a lawyer through legal aid actually cares if you get out, think again. He's got clients who are actually paying him and all he cares about his getting a new BMW or vacation home in Costa Rica.

My opinion.... Criminals have balls. It's hard to do time and I'd comit crimes if I had enough balls to do the time and so would most of you. Crime does pay, but only for so long because you always get caught in the end. It's a consciouss choice in the beginning, which sometimes people get caught up in over time, but everyone has tyhe freedom to do whatever they please. Of course there are concequences for the decisions one makes in life and extends past decisions to commit crimes. It's just part of life.

MasterKiller

 

I think the consequences should be 7-10% less for those who admit what they have done, so the justice system can move on to the next case instead of having to deal with sh*t further.

 

That's a pretty good point.

Also they are entirely necessary to the functioning of the US justice system, which simply wouldn't be able to handle the amount of trials if there were no plea bargains.

 

Plea bargaining assists in achieving a conviction for crimes that are extremely difficult to prove. By offering a less harsh sentence the prosecution is "hedging their bets" per se to achieve a conviction that may not otherwise have occurred without it. I understand where you're coming from in that different people can get different sentences for the same crime however i think it helps to achieve justice where it would otherwise not occur.

 

Bump.

 

Well I'm personally for plea barganing but seeing how this is a one sided debate I'll show you why people think plea bargainning is unjust and wrong.

First off a punishment should be a punishment you should serve an alloted amount of time for a certain crime regardless of if you admit to it or not. Giving criminals breaks is just wrong!

Secondly Plea barganing often intrigues both guilty and innocent people. Even if your innocent a thought of a smaller sentence may still be intriguing regardless of whether you committed the offence or not.