Name

Institution

Date

Plea Bargaining

A plea bargain is an understanding between the defendant through their attorney and the prosecution to resolve a case where the defendant pleads guilty or no contest in exchange for a shorter sentence or a lesser criminal charge (Kubrin & Stucky, 2013). Because of the pressure to move cases faster, prosecutors and judges consider guilty pleas, which unlike trials that take days, can be arranged in a matter of minutes. Plea bargaining is very common, with almost 90 percent of criminal cases ending as negotiated pleas. The reason why it is this common is that each party-the defense and the prosecution have some control over the result, unlike the uncertainty of a trial.

There are two types of pleas, charge bargaining and sentence bargaining. In sentence bargaining, the prosecutor settles to recommend a lighter sentence for certain charges if a defendant agrees not to contest the charges or pleads guilty. Charge bargaining occurs when prosecutors agree to drop several charges or reduce a serious charge to a lesser offense if the defendant pleads guilty or no contest. A plea of no contest sentences the defendant in the same way a guilty plea does and is included in the criminal record but does not feature as an admission of guilt in case the victim moves to a civil court. A guilty plea, on the other hand, can be entered into evidence in case the case is taken to civil court.

The public views plea bargaining in suspicion because, in some opinion, it undermines justice being served. Plea bargaining allows offenders to serve a lesser sentence than or punishment than their offense warrants. The public sides with conformist “law and order” supporters who favor tough policies when dealing with crimes because they do not understand that plea bargaining does not establish an end in itself (Viano, 2012). It is just a judicial means for dealing with criminal cases outside a trial.

The advantages of plea bargaining to the state include reducing caseloads. In the process, the prosecutors save time to deal with more severe cases by leaving effortless and petty charges to settle through. The state has overcrowded dockets that are favored by plea bargaining as there is no need to schedule trials and add to this workload. The states also benefit by eliminating the uncertainty of a case and increases the possibility of finding the accused guilty. For the defendant, the benefits include a lighter sentence, a reduced charge, and the fact that the case is virtually over as soon as one pleads before the court. However, accepting a plea is sometimes agreeing to a case that the prosecution had problems with and giving them a sentence that they would otherwise not have gotten in trial—pleading guilty means a permanent record that cannot be altered or contested.

The Charlie Gampero, Jr.’s case looks like one where the defendant suffered what might be equated to a mistrial. Gampero, Jr. was accused of killing one John Weingrad on the night of December 11, 1994 (Frontline, 2004). Gampero, who had no criminal record prior to the charge, was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Gampero insisted that he was innocent, and when a plea bargain was presented before him, he refused to sign. The judges and the prosecutors, however, worked so had to force the defendant into a plea bargain. Judge Francis Egitto had the family brought to a trial that was similar to what the charges their son was accused of, where the defendant who had refused a plea was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years to life. The judge then gave the family 15 minutes to deliberate and decide whether to take the plea or not. All this pressure resulted in Gampero, jr. pleading guilty and was sentenced to 7 years to 25 as the plea deal indicated.

However, what Gampero did know was the prosecution had found their case faulty in different areas that they preferred the plea bargain. If Gampero had not taken the plea, chances were he would have the case. The witnesses brought by the prosecution were inconsistent, and there was no witness to their main theory that Gampero killed Weingard after an apparent phone call to a payphone by Gampero, Jr.’s girlfriend that Weingard answered. The consequences for this case were dire after Gampero, jr. was denied parole after servicing five years in prison. A man that had no criminal charge continued to serve a sentence because the parole board felt that he was a threat to the community because of his violent ways. It would be hard to determine the right position as a family member. And because of the threats and pressure from the prosecution and Judge Francis Egitto, a family member was likely to go with the plea. However, the Gampero, Jr.’s lawyer failed to identify the loopholes in the prosecution’s case and determine the chances of their client winning the case. As a lawyer, I would have advised my client to go to trial.

Kelly Garret was charged with murder and robbery she alleged committed at a fuel station in New York. She was in the company of a friend years before her arrest, who apparently commuted the crime. Witnesses, however, located her on the scene. She was offered a plea bargain that she refused to take and eventually lost the trial was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison (United States Court for the Ninth Circuit, 2018). If I was her attorney, I would have advised her to take the probation because it meant she was free and would only serve a sentence with a few restrictions. The risk of going to trial was so big and the plea bargain of 15 years probation, which would come to, at least four years, considering she had served a year in prison.

Plea bargaining should be executed without coercion to avoid being disadvantageous to the defendants and resulting in the wrongful conviction of innocent people. The plea bargain is necessary to the system because it allows the state to deal with cases promptly (Kubrin & Stucky, 2013). If the cases followed a trial, then justice would be delayed and thus denied. Those that argue that plea bargaining does not serve justice do not understand the overcrowded dockets the state is dealing with. Plea bargaining should only be revised, not abolished.

References

Frontline (Bikel). (2004). The Plea [FRONTLINE explores the moral, judicial and constitutional implications of relying on plea bargains to expedite justice.].

Kubrin, C. E., & Stucky, T. D. (Eds.). (2013). Introduction to Criminal Justice: A Sociological Perspective. Stanford Social Sciences.

United States Court for the Ninth Circuit. (2018). Watch recording for USA v. Kelly Garrett, No. 16-50482 [Video]. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000014595Viano, E. C. (2012). Plea bargaining in the United States: A perversion of justice. Revue internationale de droit pénal, 83(1), 109-145.