NCJ Number
97590
Journal
University of Chicago Law Review Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Dated: (Summer 1983) Pages: 931-1050
Date Published
1983
Length
120 pages
Annotation
This article explores a variety of alternative approaches for ending the use of plea bargaining in U.S. courts, responds to arguments in favor of the current system, and suggests the use of jury waiver bargaining as a less restrictive form of bargaining.
Abstract
A discussion of potential reforms in the current system of plea bargaining focuses on providing 3-day jury trials in all felony trials at a cost of $850 million and the use of a short-form nontrial procedure for misdemeanors. This latter approach would be modeled after the West German penal order. An examination of the relationship between the complexity of our trial procedures and our plea bargaining practices reviews American history and describes current practices in other nations. It is argued that the Constitution does not forbid the substitution of mixed tribunals of professional and lay judges for criminal juries in State court proceedings. Additional innovations that might accompany this reform are explained, as are some narrower reforms. Bargaining for waiver of the right to jury trial but not for waiver of the right to trial before a court is also discussed. Practices used in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where this substitution has largely occurred, are described. Combining this jury waiver bargaining with sentencing guidelines is suggested. A total of 517 footnotes are supplied.