PLEA BARGAINING - WHO GAINS? WHO LOSES?

• NCJ Number: 49571
• Author(s): W M RHODES
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 94 pages
• Grant Number(s): 74-NI-99-0008; 75-NI-99-0111; 76-NI-99-0118; 77-NI-99-0060
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Corporate Author: INSLAW
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: PROMIS (PROSECUTOR'S MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM) RESEARCH PROJECT

Annotation

VARIOUS ASPECTS OF PLEA BARGAINING ARE EXAMINED, WITH ATTENTION TO EQUITY, DUE PROCESS, AND ALTERNATIVES TO PLEA BARGAINING.

Abstract

AN INTRODUCTION EXPLAINING THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS IS PROVIDED. MACRO- AND MICROPERSPECTIVES ON THEORETICAL MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ARE DISCUSSED, AS ARE NORMATIVE MODELS. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM OTHER STUDIES ARE NOTED, AND A DISCUSSION OF ETHICAL ISSUES IS PROVIDED. THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVES, AND THE ISSUES TO BE EXAMINED ARE OUTLINED ALONG WITH THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SELECTION. THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK IS NOTED. AN OVERVIEW OF CASE PROCESSING IS PRESENTED: THE PROCESSING OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT IS DISCUSSED, AND A FLOW DIAGRAM DETAILING THE AGGREGATE NUMBER OF CASES IS PROVIDED. COMPARABLE CASE FLOWS ARE ALSO PROVIDED FOR THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUAL OFFENSES: ASSAULT, ROBBERY, LARCENY, AND BURGLARY. THE QUESTION OF WHO GAINS AND WHO LOSES IN THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS IS DISCUSSED WITH A FOCUS ON: (1) SENTENCING IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS; (2) PREDICTED SENTENCES FOR DEFENDANTS CONVICTED BY PLEA OR DISMISSED; (3) THE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION AT TRIAL; (4) ESTIMATED PROBABILITIES OF CONVICTION AT TRIAL; (5) EXPLANATIONS OF PLEA AND DISMISSAL DISPOSITIONS; AND (6) THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PLEA DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE THEORETICAL MODELS SUMMARIZED IN THE FIRST SECTION ARE DISCUSSED TO EXPLAIN THE GUILTY PLEA PROCESS. THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS ARE EXAMINED: THE IMPACT OF RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS ON CASE DISPOSITION; REDUCING UNCERTAINTY; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; AND INDIVIDUAL PROCLIVITIES OF PROSECUTORS, DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND JUDGES. FINALLY, TESTABLE HYPOTHESES RELATING TO CRIME CONTROL AND DUE PROCESS CONCERNS ARE PRESENTED, WITH EMPHASIS ON FACTUAL GUILT, LEGAL INNOCENCE, POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION, AND WEIGHING CRIME CONTROL AND DUE PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS. TECHNICAL MATERIALS RELATING TO SENTENCING, THE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTION, RECIDIVISM, WORKLOADS, CASE DISPOSITIONS, AND REASONS UNDERLYING GUILTY PLEAS ARE APPENDED. GRAPHIC AND TABULAR DATA ARE PROVIDED, AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (KBL)