Plea Bargaining Pros and Cons

Plea bargaining is a widespread occurrence in our criminal justice system. Some people swear by the practice, citing it as essential to keep the criminal justice system from collapsing. Others make some very convincing arguments against the practice. What follows is a fairly in depth assessment of four common arguments concerning plea bargaining. The first two are anti-bargaining, and the second two outline the benefits of the practice. Please note, these are recycled contentions from an old debate case of mine, so they are worded to be persuasively spoken aloud.

One: Plea Bargaining Is Coercive

The plea bargaining system is inherently coercive. Albert Alschuler describes it as “a perfectly designed system to produce conviction of the innocent.” He goes on to describe how every defendant, regardless of whether or not they are guilty, is better off accepting the plea. Our criminal justice system is supposed to assume that every defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but Alschuler states that plea bargaining “makes the defendant half guilty”. Both Alschuler and Stephen Schulhofer describe how it is in a defense attorney's best interest to plead a defendant guilty, for reasons of both time and money. The prosecution has an obvious incentive to get the conviction. Therefore, a defendant is being coerced by both sides of the case towards accepting the plea. Our opponents will tell you that the accused still has a choice. Professor John Langbein describes how, “The problem with choice arguments is that they neglect the main dynamic of plea bargaining which is the pressure that the prosecutor puts on you to do it his way.” The 'choice' that the defendant has is one that is “so costly that only a fool will exercise the right” to a trial by jury. Shulhofer also describes how “defendants,...even if they are innocent...face enormous pressure to...accept a plea”.

Two: Plea Bargaining Harms the Public

Schulhofer, Alschuler, and Langbein all describe in their respective interviews for PBS Frontline that plea bargaining is a system that corrupts criminal justice. They each make a point of describing how plea bargaining, by coercing guilty pleas, prevents the discovery of the truth. In addition to this violation of one of the criminal justice system's most basic goals, plea bargaining also creates a mindset among criminals. Schulhofer describes that mindset by saying that criminals few the criminal justice system as a network where tactical decisions and making deals can reduce the punishment you receive. In other words, criminal justice can be manipulated. How effectively a crime is deterred is based on the punishment for that crime. When criminals can get away with lesser sentences for committing crimes, they are far more likely to commit those crimes in the first place. Furthermore, the lighter sentences in question allow criminals to be put back out on the streets faster, where they are capable of committing more crimes. This is a gross violation of public safety and the basic rights of the community, as plea bargaining ruins criminal deterrence. Schulhofer, Alschuler, and Langbein all agree that plea bargaining is a system whose harms do not outweigh the benefits, not for the defendant, not for the members of the court, and not for the American public. Clearly, then, by interfering with the ability of the criminal justice system to protect the basic rights of the people, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system.

Three: Plea bargaining prevents the collapse of the criminal justice system.

Plea bargaining allows for cases to be resolved without having to go to trial. Aaron Larson writes on ExpertLaw.com that, "If every case in the justice system went to trial, the courts would be so overloaded that they would effectively be shut down." It is a commonly agreed upon fact that approximately ninety percent of convictions are the result of plea bargains. This means that plea bargaining vastly improves the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and even those who condemn the bargaining process agree that, without this efficiency, two things would happen as the system began to flood with trials. First, prosecutors would be hard pressed to properly allocate resources to each trial, meaning more and more trials would begin to slip through. Second, eventually the system would become backed up to the point that it simply collapsed. Neither outcome serves to protect the public interest, and therefore a world without plea bargaining would in fact be worse than any flaws present in the bargaining process.

Four: Plea bargaining is better for the defendant.

Frank Easterbrook, a United States appellate judge who lectures at the University of Chicago, claims that plea bargaining gives defendants more autonomy. The bargaining process does, in fact, give the defendant more control of their own case. Our opponents may argue that these people are being coerced into pleading guilty to avoid major penalties, but there are a host of reasons this is not true. Perhaps the largest reason is the simple fact that a plea bargain is just that, a bargain. Plea bargains are not one sided 'take it or leave it' offers, they are negotiations between the prosecution and the defense. This inherently gives the defendant a greater ability to control their own fate. Plea bargains also give defendants a set of choices and options that otherwise would not be available to them. Without plea bargains, defendants would simply be along for the ride as lawyers fought over their future. Removing the element of choice from the defendant's role in their own case is a violation of the defendant's rights, and in many ways a greater violation of their rights than any so-called coercion that opponents of plea bargaining are quick to bring up. By granting the defendant more rights and autonomy in their own case, plea bargaining upholds the goal of the criminal justice system to protect the individual.

So, is plea bargaining inherently coercive and detrimental to the swift and accurate administration of justice? Or is it a necessary evil that keeps our criminal justice system ticking? Why don't you decide, and leave a remark in the comments.