Sometimes the prosecutor will trade a guilty plea for the recommendation of a lighter/shorter sentence. This is only a recommendation and the judge can override it and sentence what he feels would be appropriate. 3. Defendants may plead guilty to one charge in exchange for other charges against being dropped. If a defendant is accused of several charges, the prosecutor may recommend pleading guilty to one of the charges instead of having all of the charges brought against him/her.
The third kind of plea bargaining is fact bargaining. With fact bargaining, a defendant admits to some facts so that other facts will not be introduced in court that could incriminate them even more. While plea bargaining may be sufficient enough for the defendant and the prosecutor, that may not necessarily be the case if there were other parties involved. For instance, for murder
Thus, as this happens, it would be right for punishment as this is believed to wrong. In the United State’s Court Systems, the conventional method is for jurors as “evaluator of fact” and judges as the interpreter of the law and the instructor of the jury with regards to the application of the law. In an instance wherein the jury replaces its personal interpretation of the law and ignores the law fully to come up with a verdict, this results to jury nullification. In the courts, the commonly established perception of jury nullification is when a juror acknowledges power but has no right to nullify the law. Jury nullification is frequently practiced, but rarely occurs, in criminal trials and theoretically applicable to civil trials too – where it is focus to civil procedural solutions.
The occurrence of plea bargaining and pleading guilty even though the defendant professes his or her innocence is a rising and questionable phenomenon in the US court system. Pleas are sought to minimize sentence and the number of trials. (Mousseau, 2008) Pleading guilty typically comes with a “built-in incentive,” lessened sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. The defendant
In order for a plea bargain to hold validity it has to have three essential components, A knowing waiver of rights, A voluntary waiver and A factual basis to support the charges to which the defendant is pleading guilty. One very important point about plea bargains is that the prosecuting attorney has no authority to force a court to accept a plea agreement, it may only recommend that they accept the plea agreement. Although plea bargaining is criticized very harshly criminal convictions are done 90% through plea bargains. This
Criminals are less likely to commit a crime that they know carries a strict sentence. Crime rates will plummet for this specific crime. With the increasing numbers of inmates, there will also be an increasing number of employment needed to monitor these inmates. This strong sentence also would bring more justice to victims and the families of the victims. Ultimately this will help communities become safer.
The prosecutors work load is also reduced as a result of a plea bargain and thus they are accorded a chance to concentrate on other cases that can not be settled through plea bargaining. Besides the prosecutor, the judge also reaps the benefit of plea bargaining. This is because plea bargaining ensures speedy conclusion of cases that would have otherwise taken long to conclude hence ensuring movement of the system as a whole. Finally, it helps in reducing congestion in jails and prisons as a result of some of the defendants receiving suspended sentences from their plea bargains (McConnell, Michael & Chester,
If a jury fails or refuses to convict a defendant in a criminal trial even though there if proof of guilt, jury nullification takes place. This is because the jury believes the law is being biased or unjust. If jury nullification is used in an honest and appropriate manner, it is likely to favor minorities in the courtroom in terms of sentencing for the crime committed as opposed to it being based on race. Most people that are picked to be on a jury do not know about jury nullification. A jury, juror, or judge can nullify a case in almost any
The disadvantage of the unanimous verdict requirement is further exacerbated by the potential for guilty defendants being found not guilty simply because one juror decides to hold out on a guilty vote. This possibility can be played out under any number of scenarios; i.e., the hold-out juror is hoping for a guilty verdict on a lesser charge, or decides he or she cannot bring themself to follow through on a vote that could cost someone their life or freedom. In the Apodaca v. Oregon decision, the Court stated that the key question is whether a nonunanimous jury can fulfill the essential function of the jury. With their decision, the Court declared that it could, at least in state trials where the death penalty was not an option. Unanimous verdicts remain requirements in federal criminal trials.
(n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved November 9 2011 from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Due+Process+of+Law Meyer, J. F., & Grant, D. R. (2003). The Courts Get Involved: The History of Courts and theArrangement of Modern Courts. In The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System, 1e (pp.