Plea Bargaining
...ressure that the court has put on them. The accused perspective is that they are receiving reduced or combined charges for pleading guilty. The charge reduction offered to the defendant will usually reduce the maximum sentence. S. Dash, former Special Assistant State Attorney for the State of Florida, said, Such felonies as robbery, burglary, and rape are cut down to petty larceny, assault and battery, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Crimes which carry penalties such as twenty years or life … are punished with as little as thirty days in the county jail. This is the advantage the defendant has when accepting a bargain. The judge’s will accept plea bargains simply because they reduce the workload of the courts. However, the defendant may not end up so lucky. Because it is illegal to offer an inducement in exchange for a guilty plea, the judge may not take the prosecutors advice to give a lighter sentence to the defendant (Schmalleger 350). Plea-bargaining remains a controversial issue today. The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet addressed the constitutionality of plea-bargaining. However, in cases such as Brady v. the United States and Santobello v New York the court has found that plea-bargains are an “essential component of the administration of justice” (Lewis and Peoples 976). In the 1970 case of Brady v United States, the court reasoned that plea-bargains were acceptable if voluntary and knowingly accepted by defendant. In this case the defendant had been accused of kidnapping and was facing the death penalty. His first decision was to plead not guilty to the charges, but after he was told that his codefendant was going to plead guilty to the charges and testify against him he changed his plea to guilty. He was then sentenced to 50 years in prison. However in 1967 he appealed saying that he pleaded guilty on the grounds he was told he would receive a lighter sentence and that his plea was the result of an inducement. This did not hold up in court however. On May 4, 1970, the court refused his appeal saying, “by reason of other matters and not by reason of the statute' or because of any acts of the trial judge. The court concluded that 'the plea was voluntarily and knowingly made” (Brady v. U. S., 397 U.S. 742). It was the result of this case that lead the court to make its decision that plea-bargaining was acceptable. One year later, 1971, in the case of Santobello v. New York, a similar thing occurred. The defendant changed his plea from guilty to not guilty under the impression that he was going to receive a lighter sentence for the two felony counts, Promoting Gambling in the First Degree and Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree, he was accused of. Many months later, Santobello stood in the court room waiting for his sentenced and found that a new prosecutor had recommended the maximum statements and the judge accepted it. After realizing what was going on Santobello tried to withdraw his guilty plea, but was denied. It was held that, “the interests of justice and proper recognition of the prosecution's duties in relation to promises made in connection with "plea bargaining" require that the judgment be vacated and that the case be remanded to the state courts for further consideration as to whether the circumstances require only that there be specific performance of the agreement on the plea or petitioner should be afforded the relief he seeks of withdrawing his guilty plea” (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257). It was after this case that the court ruled that plea-bargaining is important and necessary. The 1977 case of Blackledge v. Allison the defendant was being charged with robbery. After his attorney informed him that by pleading guilty he would only receive 10 years in prison ,he agreed. The judge accepted his plea after questioning him about whether the plea was the result of an inducement. Then when it came time for sentencing, he found that he was going to be incarcerated for 17-21 years. He wrote a writ of habeas corpus and stated that he was aware he pleaded guilty and answered questions for a judge, but that his answers were based on what his attorney had told him to do. He says he thought that he was just answering the questions so that the court would accept his guilty plea and that in return he would only get 10 years. The District Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the case showed the defendant had chosen to plead guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and with full awareness of the consequences (Blackledge v. Allison 431 U.S. 63). This case brought up a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of plea-bargaining. Because the Supreme Court has not yet touched the subject of whether or not plea-bargaining is constitutional it described the benefits of plea-bargaining in the following statement, The defendant avoids extended- pre trial incarceration and the anxieties and uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The public is protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal offense who are at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings. This statement shows that the Supreme Court has no intention of abolishing plea-bargaining. It feels that plea-bargaining is useful and beneficial to all those involved and is not an unconstitutional way of doing things. In 1973 the National Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals stated that plea-bargaining creates concerning court procedures. By 1978 they had written a three page long recommendation for the abolishment of plea-bargaining.. Reasons such as people not receiving the punishment they deserved were given. They felt that plea-bargains were unfair to the victims of the crimes (Schmalleger). ...