Identify and explain the arguments for and against plea bargaining.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Arguments in favor of plea bargaining are really arguments about the benefits of plea bargaining. Most
people would agree that the primary benefit of plea bargaining is that it enables courts to dispose of large
numbers of criminal cases quickly. The crime control model contends that a high rate of plea bargaining
is necessary if the system is to operate with maximal efficiency. Plea bargaining benefits prosecutors,
who are concerned about securing convictions and avoiding acquittals at trial and are faced with limited
resources. The cases that go to trial are likely to be high-profile cases or those in which defendants are
facing harsh potential sentences. Less serious cases, or cases with evidentiary or witness problems, are
prime candidates for plea bargains. Plea bargaining, in other words, may be favored by the prosecution
because it allows the courtroom workgroup to further its “mutual interest in avoiding conflict, reducing
uncertainty, and maintaining group cohesion” (Weninger, 1987, p. 265).
Defense attorneys have high caseloads and limited resources and, like prosecutors, are concerned
about disposing of cases quickly and efficiently. In addition, plea bargaining allows the defense attorney
to mitigate the harshness of the sentence her or his client would face following conviction at trial. In this
sense, plea bargaining also benefits defendants, who receive more lenient sentences by pleading guilty
to less serious charges or to fewer courts. Finally, victims may benefit from plea bargaining; if the
defendant pleads guilty, the victim will not have to testify at the trial or face the possibility that the
prosecution will not succeed in obtaining a conviction (Demarest, 1994).
There are many arguments against plea bargaining. One is that plea bargaining allows prosecutors and
defense attorneys to effectively decide matters of guilt; no judge and no jury are involved. Another
criticism is that in an effort to secure a guilty plea, the prosecutor may start with the most serious charge
and work down from there; the prosecutor may “overcharge” as a first step in the bargaining process.
Critics also charge that plea bargaining is inefficient. This criticism rests on two assumptions. The first is
that defense attorneys attempt to draw out the negotiations in an attempt to get prosecutors to offer
better deals. As one researcher observed, “Defense attorneys commonly devise strategies whose only
utility lies in the threat they pose to the court’s and prosecutor’s time” (Alschuler, 1968, p. 50). The
second assumption is that plea bargaining is unnecessary to induce guilty pleas. That is, critics of plea
bargaining contend that most defendants would plead guilty without any concessions or promises of
leniency if they think it is likely that they would be found guilty at trial (Arenella, 1983).
One of the most pervasive criticisms of plea bargaining is that it undermines the integrity of the criminal
justice system. Plea bargaining, which amounts to deciding guilt without trial, circumvents the “rigorous
standards of due process and proof imposed during trials” (Worden, 1990). Finally, critics of plea
bargaining claim that innocent individuals may be coerced to plead guilty. As one of the staunchest
critics of plea bargaining has stated, plea bargaining “darkens the prospect of going to trial as it brightens
the prospect of pleading guilty”