Discuss plea bargaining from the perspective of both its advocates and its critics. Bring up the example of Brian Banks.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.The U.S. Supreme Court has called plea bargaining "an essential component of the administration of justice" (Santobello v. New York, 1971) and has stated that defendants have a constitutional right to effective representation in plea negotiations, including competent advice and information about prosecutors' offers (Lafler v. Cooper, 2012). Still, plea bargaining remains a controversial and largely unregulated procedure. It has been defended as a necessary and useful part of the criminal justice system and condemned as a practice that should be abolished from our courts. Advocates justify the procedure by pointing out that guilty pleas lessen the backlog of cases that would otherwise engulf the courts, facilitate the prosecution of other offenders, and reduce the involvement of criminal justice participants, including police officers who don't have to spend hours in court and victims who are spared the trauma of a trial.Critics urge the abolition, or at least, a revision, of plea-bargaining practices. They claim that (1) improper sentences-sometimes too harsh but more often too lenient-are likely; (2) plea bargaining encourages defendants to surrender their constitutional rights; (3) prosecutors exert too much power in negotiating guilty pleas; and (4) innocent defendants might feel pressure to plead guilty because they fear the more severe consequences of being convicted by a jury.Brian Banks was a star linebacker in high school who had attracted the attention of college coaches and recruiters. In fact, in 2002 he verbally committed to play for the University of Southern California. But that all unraveled when a high school acquaintance, Wanetta Gibson, accused Banks of rape and kidnapping after first claiming that the two had consensual sex on the school campus. Years later, Gibson admitted she had lied. Banks faced an excruciating choice: either fight the charges and face a sentence of 41 years to life or agree to a plea bargain that would land him in prison for just 5 years. He opted for the latter, though it meant curtailing his football aspirations and lifetime registration as a sex offender. In 2012, following Gibson's recantation, Banks' conviction was overturned, but by then he had served five years in prison and another five on probation as a registered sex offender.