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 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
One of the types of plea bargaining is charge bargaining. Charge bargaining is where the defendant pleades guilty to a lesser charge, and the other higher charges they may have against them would ultimately be dismissed. Another type of plea bargaining is sentence bargaining. This is where the defendant pleads guilty to a charge, but they receive a lesser sentence. The third kind of plea bargaining is fact bargaining.
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
It is possible that the truth is, that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used, instead plea bargaining is the primary technique used by the government to bypass the institutional safeguards in trials (Timothy Lynch Cato Institute). Some argue that plea bargaining results in criminals receiving undeserved leniency, while others argue that plea bargaining subject’s defendants to unjustifiable pressure to forego their constitutional right to a jury trial. Scholars have attacked plea bargaining on the ground that prosecutors wield too much power over defendants and coerce them into accepting plea agreements which might be unfair. Some commentators add that these defendants are too often deprived of
This means that they basically have absolute power of what happens in the case such as whether or not to pursue charges, what sentence the state wants, deciding how severe the charges are, and whether or not to plea bargain ("Prosecutorial Discretion", 2001-2013). This discretion can make the trial process take several months in some cases it slows down the flow of the cases in the court system because of the time that it takes for the prosecutor to decide these things. The prosecutor has the job to decide these things and then has to still do the trial this may also drag the cases out because the prosecutor might get a little worn out. The defense counsels job is to defend the people that the prosecutor is trying to send to jail and try to keep them from going to jail or avoid paying the monetary damages sought in a lawsuit. The defense counsel also protects these people from the power of the state (Klein, 2013).
James Wetzel CRMJ 101-52 Online Jury Nullification-Article 1 Jury Nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict against the proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law to be unjust or unjustly applied. As a result, the defendant is declared innocent, or is given a lesser penalty, even though without an act of jury nullification they would have been found guilty. While this all seems great, jury nullification is a source of much debate in today’s society. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard or last resort again the wrongful punishment and imprisonment. While others often view it as a violation of the right of a jury and undermining that law.
Sentencing Sentencing Katie Miller CJA/314 Criminology February 10, 2013 Krista Hall Axia College/University of Phoenix There are many things that must be considered when presenting a Bill to increase sentencing. This particular Bill would double the sentence for armed robbery. At first glance, the Bill appears to be a good plan, but is it really? This report looks at many factors that would be influenced by this Bill. After considering these factors, a recommendation will be made on whether or not this Bill would really be beneficial.
In this speech I am going to tell you about the types of insanity defense that are used in court cases, the process that goes into verifying a criminals sanity, and the issues that come about after a plea is entered. Now I’m going to explain what insanity is and the different types associate with it. The insanity defense plea as defined in law journals is a defense that’s asserted by the accused in a criminal prosecution as a way to avoid liability for a commission of a crime because at the time of the crime the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts. Cognitive insanity is the most common variation of an insanity defense that goes through the court system. This is where the defendant during the time of the crime suffered from a mental disease that impaired his/her psychological ability to see the wrongfulness of the act they committed.
Right to Counsel Resha Harris CJA/364 May, 16, 2012 Gary, Looney Right to Counsel When a suspect is arrested and charged, he or she has the right of a counsel with an experienced attorney. In cases, which he or she cannot afford a lawyer the state has to provide one for the accused? “Police interrogation was a major concern. Without representation by counsel, the defendant is alone and vulnerable to improper police tactics. In two late 1950s cases, Crooker v .California (1958) and Cicenia v. LA gay (1958), dissenting justice argued that voluntary confessions should be excluded on the grounds that defendants requests for attorney were denied (Zalman, p., 2008).