An Essay on the Website of |
Plea Bargaining
Regular viewers of nighttime television can expect two things in any
police drama: a Miranda warning and an offer to plea bargain. “You have the
right to remain silent….” near the beginning of the show and “in exchange
for telling us this, we’re only going to charge you with that” toward the
conclusion. In real life, as in television, these two elements are
institutionalized into the American justice system, but only one of them, the
Miranda warning, can be said to truly serve justice. Plea agreements are
overused and should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances.
Advocates of plea-bargaining argue the practice helps catch other, more
dangerous criminals and relieves overburdened court systems, while opponents say
criminals receive unduly lenient sentences under bargain agreements. While there
is validity to both of these arguments, my concern is that plea agreements
encourage shoddy work by prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Although we may say that a suspect is accused of a certain crime, say
theft or drug possession, the list of charges is usually much longer. Like
throwing a fistful of mud on the wall in hopes that something sticks, a district
attorney (DA) files as many charges as possible. A person found in illegal
possession of prescription drugs during a traffic stop could have a long list of
charges brought against him including theft, intent to distribute, driving under
the influence, plus have his car and cash seized upon arrest.
Consider, if the truth is that the suspect does illegally possess
prescription drugs, but he hadn’t ingested any yet (so is not under the
influence), purchased rather than stole them, had no intention of selling or
distributing them, and the money was from his just-cashed paycheck, none of
these facts is relevant. Rather than make the DA prove his or her case, the
defense attorney, having made a deal over a cup of coffee with the DA, convinces
the defendant that he is getting off easy with a guilty plea in exchange for a
few lesser charges being dropped. The defendant, who has already paid his lawyer
a few thousand dollars, lost his vehicle, paycheck, and now has a reputation as
a thief, is afraid that things can only get worse and cuts a deal that still may
cost even more money and jail time.
In the above scenario, which repeats itself over and over
disproportionately among people of modest means, law enforcement agencies add to
their coffers with seized property and cash and defense attorneys bring in
thousands of dollars for a maximum of two or three hours of actual time spent on
a case. The benefit to society is
questionable and probably negated when you consider that our national pride is
based on a justice system built on the tenets that an individual is innocent
until proven guilty, the burden of proof must rest on the accuser, and the
punishment should fit the crime.
It is easy to say to the defendant “shame on you” and never examine
whether justice was truly served, but there is something fundamentally wrong
with a system in which guilt or innocence is overlooked in favor of convenience
and in which people routinely plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because
they lack the means to do otherwise. Law enforcement should have reasonable
evidence before charging a suspect and defense attorneys should do at least the
minimum job that their clients pay them for: defend against wrongful charges;
for either party to do less is truly a miscarriage of justice and creates a
system that any of us could fall victim to.
|
Site Map
HOME
ShortStories
Essays
Poems
Websites
Meetings
Comments
ContactUs
Members