Reference no: EM133857193

Question

One primary argument against plea bargaining is that it can lead to wrongful convictions. Defendants, particularly those who are innocent, may feel pressured to accept a plea deal to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence if they go to trial. This pressure undermines the right to a fair trial and can result in innocent people having criminal records. Additionally, the process often lacks transparency and can be perceived as being carried out behind closed doors without public scrutiny, leading to questions about the fairness and accountability of the justice system (Orenstein, 2019). Furthermore, the power imbalance between prosecutors and defendants can be significant. Prosecutors have the ability to offer deals that can appear more favorable than risking a jury trial, putting defendants at a disadvantage, especially if they lack proper legal representation. This can result in unequal outcomes, where those with better legal support fare better than those without (Bibas, 2016). On the other hand, proponents argue that plea bargaining is necessary for the efficiency of the justice system. Courts are often overwhelmed with cases, and plea deals help to reduce the backlog, ensuring that the system can function more smoothly. It also provides certainty to both parties, as trials can be unpredictable, and a plea deal guarantees an outcome (Devers, 2011).