What purpose does plea bargaining serve for the defense? For the prosecution? Given the criticisms leveled against plea bargaining, do you believe that it’s an acceptable practice? Explain

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Plea bargaining is essential to case processing. It is beneficial to defendants because they are given a reduction in sentence. The defendant’s attorney benefits because the case is processed quickly and trial preparation time is decreased. Prosecutors are able to get convictions, even if they have weak evidence, because of plea bargaining. The adversarial standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult to achieve, and thus plea bargaining provides a “sure thing.” It also is beneficial to the entire court process as plea bargaining saves time and resources of all parties since case preparation for trial is not completed. The existence of plea bargaining has also created an informal system in courthouses, as parties agree to common going rates allowing for the smooth processing of cases. Detractors of the plea-bargaining process point to the public’s perception that offenders manipulate the process to escape just punishment. They see this as the strongest argument against plea bargaining. Such people cite denial of society’s sense of justice when an offender receives a lesser degree of punishment than his or her action(s) might otherwise deserve.
Its supporters contend that plea bargaining is an essential and effective means of moving cases through an expensive and overburdened system. In the absence of plea bargaining, they say, the sheer volume of cases would overwhelm the system, causing it to grind to a halt. Most people find plea bargaining acceptable simply because the alternative—significant expansion of the criminal justice system at extraordinary expense—is just not economically feasible.