Good Morning...Let's Make a Deal

[Okla-homey]

Feb 7, 1881: Plea bargaining gains favor in American courts

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/Plea-Bargain-Drunk-Driving.jpg

130 years ago today, accused Albert McKenzie pleads guilty to a misdemeanor count of embezzlement in Alameda County, California. McKenzie had originally been charged with a felony for taking $52.50 from the sewing-machine company for which he worked. However, rather than go through a trial, the prosecution and defendant agreed to a plea bargain, a practice that was becoming increasingly common in American courts.

If both sides agree on a plea bargain then the plea bargain agreement will be clearly stated on the court record before a judge who will issue the agreed upon sentence. Both sides are legally required to follow the terms of the plea bargain and the agreed upon disposition of the case.

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab7/Okla-homey/pleacourtroom.jpg

The right to a trial by jury is considered a central part of the justice system from te earliest days of the United States. The Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights codified it as an essential part of Americans' civil liberties. When criminals were caught and charged, the government went through a trial and verdict. But in the 1800s, a trend toward plea bargaining began.

In Alameda County, from 1880 to 1910, nearly 10 percent of all defendants changed their "not guilty" pleas to "guilty of lesser charges" or pled guilty to reduced charges.

Today, the plea bargain is an essential part of the criminal justice system. The great majority of charges, over 90 percent in many jurisdictions, are resolved through some type of plea bargain.

When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties. However, going to trial can be risky because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. Therefore, many defendants choose to enter a plea bargain agreement with the prosecution.

The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial.

Additionally, some attorneys and judges argue that plea bargaining has led to poor police investigations and attorneys who do not take the time to properly prepare their cases. They believe that instead of pursuing justice, the parties rely on making a deal and that the details of what happened and the legal consequences for those actions are less important.

[jkjsooner]

[SIZE="6"]The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial.

This post is very interesting. I did not know when plea bargaining became commonplace.

The part I quoted above brings up a couple of points.

1. As I've stated on this board before, I think this has lead to DA's finding technicalities to charge a person with a felony for what most would consider a minor offense just to force them into agreeing to a lesser offense. In a lot of cases the DA will use an interpretation of the law that probably would not stand up in court but, when faced a potential felony, most people won't fight it.

2. This is a question and comment. Can one be subjected to perjury charges because of his/her plea bargain?

The reason I ask is because of the Gov. Walters case years ago. Walters plea bargained for a lesser charge in his campaign finance trial. Afterward, he said in speeches that he did not commit the crimes he was accused of but plea bargained to get the matter over with.

Macy threatened to charge Walters with perjury and forced him to state again, under oath, that he did commit the crimes.

To me, at worst this episode seemed like a complete abuse of power on Macy's part. At best it goes against the spirit of plea bargains.

In this case, had Macy actually pressed Walters on the perjury issue, he would have been taking two mutually exclusive stances:


Stating that Walters did in fact break campaign finance laws.
Stating that Walters did not break campaign finance laws and perjured himself with his plea bargain.


Whether he has the right to do so or not, I would think most would agree that it is unethical for DA's to put themselves in such conflicting positions. The fact that Macy attempted to play both sides should have been enough in my eyes to show a level of bias that should have put in jeopardy the entire prosecution. Afterall, if Macy believed Walters violated the law, it should have been none of his concern that Walters lied in speeches when not under oath. To bring him back to the court to again admit wrongdoing (or else face perjury charges) was clearly a political stunt and there is no room for political stunts in the DA's office.



A couple of more things to add: If pleas are in fact subject to perjury, then why don't we automatically tack on a perjury charge to everyone who pleads innocent of a crime and is later found guilty in the court? It just shows the absurd position Macy took in that case.

[delhalew]

I believe it is a real shame. Our courts have developed systemic cancer, from traffic court all the way to the Supreme Court. They seem to have lost site of the reason for their very existence.

[Leroy Lizard]

[SIZE="6"]

The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial.


The biggest drawback is that we often turn violent criminals loose on the public instead of keeping them where they belong. It saves no money, because after he kills someone you still have to try him anyway.

[TUSooner]

I believe it is a real shame. Our courts have developed systemic cancer, from traffic court all the way to the Supreme Court. They seem to have lost site of the reason for their very existence.
Spoken like an ideologue who knows nothing about how courts really work. You wanna see a real explosion in the size of government, or maybe a collapse of the judicial system? Try forcing every criminal case to trial. OTOH, get rid of wasteful drug prosecutions and you might start moving toward a more manageable court sytsem.

[Leroy Lizard]

Spoken like an ideologue who knows nothing about how courts really work. You wanna see a real explosion in the size of government, or maybe a collapse of the judicial system? Try forcing every criminal case to trial.

How many of those trials would have never proceeded because the violator would have been behind bars when the crime was committed?

If a man burglarizes a home and you let him plea bargain down to simple theft, you've gained nothing. He's just going to burglarize another home, further draining our police system's manpower, and forcing the issue into the court house anyway.

[stoopified]

No Monty Hall thread?

[delhalew]

Spoken like an ideologue who knows nothing about how courts really work. You wanna see a real explosion in the size of government, or maybe a collapse of the judicial system? Try forcing every criminal case to trial. OTOH, get rid of wasteful drug prosecutions and you might start moving toward a more manageable court sytsem.

First you're wrong...then you're right. It's like stubbing your toe on bar of gold!