The plea bargaining process 7 is there ever an

This preview shows page 7 - 9 out of 9 pages.

The Plea Bargaining Process 7Is there ever an instance where a prosecutor can be relieved from fulfilling a plea bargaining agreement? The courts stated "if a defendant conceals relevant facts such as a prior felony conviction...or fails to perform an act that was required as part of the agreement..." (Acker& Brody, 1999, p. 610), the prosecutor can then break said agreement. If a defendant enters a plea but commits an offense before sentencing or performs an act that was forbidden by the agreement the prosecutor can definitely not honor his promise.In Rickett v. Adamson (1987), Adamson plead guilty to second degree murder, instead of first degree murder, which was a capital offense. The agreement was contingent upon him giving testimony against his co-defendants. He refused to testify and the prosecutor reinstated his original charge of first degree murder. The Supreme Court agreed that Adamson did breach the plea agreement and that the state was correct in revoking it. "Adamson's death sentence was latervacated on other grounds." (p. 610)There are a few criticisms against this process. Some people believe that the court is being too lenient because plea bargaining allows for a lower sentence than if the case had went totrial, "yet these lower sentences spring not from institutionalized leniency but from legal standards..." (Mc Coy, 1993, p. XIV). The reason why a negotiated sentence is less is because there are factors involved in the case that demonstrates that the defendant does not deserve the maximum sentence. During the negotiating process these factors are discussed thoroughly and if the case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a plea agreement would then be offered.Another criticism is that plea bargaining is a departure from due process, because when someone decides to plead guilty they are relinquishing their 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination and 6th amendment right to confront their accuser and their right to a trial by a
The Plea Bargaining Process 8jury. In most cases he is also giving up the right to appeal except in those circumstances where some type of prosecutorial vindictiveness was involved.Another concern is the fact that the victims are being ignored because of the fact they do not have their day in court to be heard. But the proponents for plea bargaining can retort by saying that the process is being sympathetic to the victim where they would not have to relive theexperience by giving their testimony in court. (p. XIV) Also some witnesses might not wish to give testimony in court.There has been some attempts made to try to eliminate or reduce the cases disposed of byplea bargaining. For instance, California's proposition 8, the Victims Bill of Rights, was passed in 1982. It misled votes into thinking that it was in support of a ban on plea bargaining. (p. XVII)What it in fact did was speed up the time for the guilty plea to be approved by the courts, which means the cases would not be scrutinized as closely as before. (p. XVII) Therefore it would be done poorly to comply with the time restraints.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture