ETHICS IN PLEA BARGANING
Ethical Considerations Associated with Plea Bargaining
Plea bargaining occurs when both sides in a case compromise to settle the matter before having a judge or jury decide. More often than not, the defendant pleads guilty to a crime that carries a less harsh sentence than the actual accused offense. The ethical dilemma is one of convenience over justice. This approach, however, might cause ethical dilemmas, such as inequality in the justice system. The courts are clogged, prosecutors are overworked, and there is the constitutional demand for a "Speedy Trial." On one hand you have the courts doing their best to manage logjams, and on the other the need to provide justice. Plea bargaining is done for several reasons such as, the chances of a lengthy trial or the lack of concrete evidence. Courts frequently bargain away charges that are just in order to get a guilty verdict on a lesser charge because they want the case to go away, or they don't want to take the risk in a trial because they doubt the conclusiveness of their evidence. Plea Bargains often cut out many court costs and help the legal system move cases along more quickly. This many lead to guilty individuals going free, receiving a fine, probation or a drastically reduced prison sentence for committing a heinous crime. Parties that work on a bargain agreement usually get a lesser sentence than a person who attempts to contest charges through a proper trial. Moreover, justice can be harmed when the guilty are not properly punished, and this can have a corrosive effect on popular belief in the fairness of the system. Whether an ethical dilemma exists with plea bargaining depends on how a person views the ultimate goal of the court system. Those who think the judicial system should deter crime and work efficiently, see plea bargains as a useful tool. However, those who prize equality see them as ethically dubious. Supporters of plea bargaining may admit to some deficiencies in the
Plea bargaining occurs when both sides in a case compromise to settle the matter before having a judge or jury decide. More often than not, the defendant pleads guilty to a crime that carries a less harsh sentence than the actual accused offense. The ethical dilemma is one of convenience over justice. This approach, however, might cause ethical dilemmas, such as inequality in the justice system. The courts are clogged, prosecutors are overworked, and there is the constitutional demand for a "Speedy Trial." On one hand you have the courts doing their best to manage logjams, and on the other the need to provide justice. Plea bargaining is done for several reasons such as, the chances of a lengthy trial or the lack of concrete evidence. Courts frequently bargain away charges that are just in order to get a guilty verdict on a lesser charge because they want the case to go away, or they don't want to take the risk in a trial because they doubt the conclusiveness of their evidence. Plea Bargains often cut out many court costs and help the legal system move cases along more quickly. This many lead to guilty individuals going free, receiving a fine, probation or a drastically reduced prison sentence for committing a heinous crime. Parties that work on a bargain agreement usually get a lesser sentence than a person who attempts to contest charges through a proper trial. Moreover, justice can be harmed when the guilty are not properly punished, and this can have a corrosive effect on popular belief in the fairness of the system. Whether an ethical dilemma exists with plea bargaining depends on how a person views the ultimate goal of the court system. Those who think the judicial system should deter crime and work efficiently, see plea bargains as a useful tool. However, those who prize equality see them as ethically dubious. Supporters of plea bargaining may admit to some deficiencies in the