NCJ Number
108485
Date Published
1987
Length
0 pages
Annotation
Presenters argue for and against plea bargaining as a means of resolving criminal cases.
Abstract
Moderator William McDonald, deputy director of the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure at Georgetown University, summarizes the history of plea bargaining in the American criminal justice system, noting that it persists, under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that it is constitutional, in the face of heavy criticism. Professor Albert Alschuler of the University of Chicago Law School argues against plea bargaining, viewing it as inappropriate under our system of doing justice. He reasons that our trial system has been established to do justice under procedures that precisely control the determination of guilt. Plea bargaining, Alschuler reasons, is a utilitarian means of saving the cost of a trial by providing defendants an incentive not to go to trial, i.e., typically a reduction in the charge to bring a lesser sentence. Alschuler reasons that if trials have become too expensive for our society to bear, then a better alternative than plea bargaining should be devised, such as the use of more bench trials. Victor Carlson, judge of the Superior Court of Alaska, reasons that plea bargaining should be one option for the defendant and that when it is properly administered, it serves both the State's and the defendant's interests. Audience questions are included.