NCJ Number
59930
Journal
Law and Society Review Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Dated: SPECIAL ISSUE (WINTER 1979) Pages: 573-582
Date Published
1979
Length
10 pages
Annotation
THIS CRITIQUE OF CONFERENCE PAPERS ON PLEA BARGAINING FOCUSES ON SOME OF THE MAJOR DIVISIONS WHICH SURFACED OVER THIS ISSUE.
Abstract
THE SEMANTIC ARGUMENTS WHICH AROSE OVER THE DEFINITION OF PLEA BARGAINING IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BECAUSE BY FOCUSING ON THIS LEVEL OF DEBATE, THE TRADEOFFS INVOLVED IN SUCH PROCEDURES ARE OVERLOOKED. FOR EXAMPLE, MCDONALD'S (NCJ-59920) DEFINITION OF PLEA BARGAINING TO INCLUDE BOTH EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT FORMS OF BARGAINING EXPANDS PLEA BARGAINING TO SOMETHING THAT IS NEITHER PLEA NOR BARGAINING. IN ORDER TO HAVE A BASIS FOR DEBATE, THE DEFINITION OF PLEA BARGAINING SHOULD BE LIMITED TO SUCH EXPLICIT AND MANIFEST NEGOTIATIONS. SIX TYPES OF OBJECTIONS HAVE ARISEN OVER THE SYSTEM OF PLEA BARGAINING. SOME OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT PUNISHMENT IS BEING NEGOTIATED OR BARTERED FOR RATHER THAN BEING DETERMINED NEUTRALLY. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THE SECRECY OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS UNDERMINES THE SENSE OF JUSTICE CONSIDERED SO IMPORTANT IN THE U.S. SYSTEM. OTHERS HAVE POINTED TO THE DIFFICULTIES CREATED BY COMBINING THE DETERMINATION OF GUILTY OR INNOCENT PLEAS WITH THE SETTING OF PUNISHMENTS. ALSO, FUNDAMENTAL CRITICISMS HAVE ARISEN OVER WHETHER COERCION IS AN INTRINSIC PART OF SUCH NEGOTIATIONS. THE DIVERSITY OF PLEA BARGAINING PROCEDURES MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHO HAS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING THE PENALTIES; BECAUSE PLEA BARGAINING HAS NO WELL-STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS VIEWED AS BEING CAPRICIOUS. ADDITIONAL EFFORTS MUST BE TAKEN TO SEPARATE ROUTINE COURT CASES FROM COMPLEX ONES, DETERMINE WHO BENEFITS FROM CURRENT PLEA BARGAINING ARRANGEMENTS, ESTABLISH WHETHER PEOPLE WHO PLEAD GUILTY RECEIVE LIGHTER SENTENCES THAN THOSE WHO ELECT TO HAVE A TRIAL, AND STUDY THE DIVERSITY OF CURRENT PLEA BARGAINING PROCEDURES. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)