Reference no: EM134045820

Question

A plea bargain is a better deal for the person accused of a crime in return for pleading guilty. This arrangement is made for a variety of reasons on both the defendant and prosecutor's sides, respectively, to avoid a jury trial. Reasons for the defendant to take a plea include the prosecutor allowing for a lighter sentence than the undetermined outcome of a jury trial; additionally, if they did not make bail or bond, they could go home the day they sign the plea deal, making it very appealing for the defendant, guilty or innocent. It may also result in the defendant not having to bring up the past in an open courtroom, which may be a sensitive matter for the defendant or victim, for example, domestic abuse. It is controversial because it provides a guarantee of the outcome, whereas a jury trial could go a million different directions, and even though the outcome of a jury trial may be more favorable, it is not guaranteed, which makes the plea bargain so appealing. However, I believe that the plea deal is required due to a lack of manpower. For example, we cannot hold a jury trial for every person who has ever been busted with marijuana. There aren't enough public defenders or public defenders, let alone courtrooms or judges. Petty crimes like marijuana must be plead out to create room for more serious crimes, but defendants always have the option of a jury trial. The plea bargain is an important concept, but it has flaws, and some parts of it appear to be unconstitutional, because we aren't allowing people to have their day in court, because the carrot of going home is so appealing because jail is such an awful place to be, but that just leads me to an off-topic belief that money bail should not be legal, and that would solve this problem.