The Plea Bargaining Controversy

Abstract

Guilty pleas became a major method of case disposition in the late 19th century and today account for over 85% of all felony convictions,' yet pleas are a continuing source of controversy.Some critics argue that a system of negotiated justice undermines the deterrent effectiveness of punishment and can be used by influential defendants to evade legal sanctions.Others maintain that defendants with prior criminal records, and hence more firsthand experience with the justice system, are able to negotiate more favorable sentences. 2Proponents of these views see plea bargaining as undesirable because it weakens the deterrent and incapacitative effectiveness of the law by allowing some defendants to minimize their punishment.Additional attacks on plea bargaining focus on the alleged coerciveness of the process. 3 This viewpoint characterizes plea bargaining as a series of threats and promises by legal officials that induce defendants to forfeit many of their legal rights and plead guilty.The coercion argument rests on the belief that defendants convicted at trial are sentenced more harshly than those convicted by plea. 4 Since a defendant seeks to minimize his punishment, pleading guilty

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 97 citations exist upstream.