Judicial Process 3 Essay Questions

JUDICIAL PROCESS 3 ESSAY QUESTIONS 1

JudicialProcess 3 Essay Questions

AffiliatedInstitute

Question I

Based on the quotesin the handout, &quotMoley’s Wisdom and Insight Regarding PleaBargains,&quot develop a list of pros and cons of Moley’s points.Share your list. Which is better for &quotseparating the guilty fromthe innocent:&quot plea bargains or trials?

  1. Even compulsory sentencing laws can be evaded

There is also a riskof unequal treatment before the court. For instance, if a defendantprovides evidence on another defendant, they may able to receive alesser sentence than those without evidence.

  1. The bargains present a tenacious rationality

Either a person isguilty of the crime accused or not. The person accepting the guiltyplea makes it hard for the requirement of justice to punish himcorrectly.

  1. The significance placed on persecutor’s record encourages bargaining

Moyes questions theefficiency through plea bargain and dismissals of innocentdefendants. A plea bargain is connected to personal incentives toreduce workload and rewards for ranking high win-loss ratios. Themain winner in a plea agreement is the prosecutor.

  1. Lists gains to the prosecutor and uses the phrase “battling average.”

Moley uses thephrase “batting average” to show the connection between the rateof conviction and plea bargaining. A prosecutor elected by the statemay be more concerned the “batting average” while prosecutorsappointed by the federal may weigh more heavily in the total prisonmonths.

  1. Plea bargaining is not logic, and its objective are not justice

Since the personarrested for a crime is guilty, the most important reason for acriminal process is to carry the crime efficiently as possible. Theobjective of the administration is to have the defendant enter theguilty plea as soon as possible. Punishment must be severe toencourage the guilty plea and prevent crime.

The practice ofbargaining utilizes the justified sentence at a reasonable cost byenabling the prosecutor as well as judges to pursue more discountedcases with the same resource would be used on a single trail. Since atrial can be traded for many bargaining, in contrast to no guiltyplea, it exploits the deserved sentence under the restraints of thelegal system. However, bargaining should be eliminated to enableprosecutor and judges to seek more sentence that provide thedefendants a rational deserved judgment.

Question 2

How did pleabargaining develop? What are the consequences of entering a guiltyplea?

The practice of pleabargain was first introduced in law courts mainly as an instrument todeal with the practical problems that persecutors faced, such asoverwhelming caseloads, efforts to increase efficiently so as to maketime for their concerns, obtaining additional information fromdefendants who pleaded quilt. This practice originated fromAnglo-American jurisdiction but was relatively rare until the secondhalf of the ninetieth century. The practice of accepting plea bargainoriginally emerged in England in the seventieth century as a tool formitigating excessively harsh punishment. According to Combos (2002),changes that occurred in English criminal procedure in eightiethcentury-the defendants were eliminated as a testimonial resource, thedominance of evidentiary objections and the development of theprivilege against self-discrimination-all contributed to theincreasing complexity of the law court. All of these, supported byexpert witness testimonies and cross-examinations of witnesstransformed speedy and efficient trials into a time consuming andcomplex system, thus presenting a fertile ground for the introductionof plea bargaining.

In United States,the plea bargaining practice originated in mid ninetieth century asan outcome of the caseload boom, which was caused by the tremendousgrowth of crime and as a result of improved policing methods, whichproduced more arrests that led to more persecutions, while moredefendants began to exercise their rights to appeal from lowertribunal to higher instances as well as coming to the courts withlawyers. The caseload of prosecutors was over-burdening since themajority of them worked as part-time public prosecutors and gainedonly part-time salaries if any for their services. Therefore, theyhad the substantial motivation to accept the practice of guilty plea.

Question 3

State the steps inentering a guilty plea. What are the consequences of entering aguilty plea?

There are foursignificant steps when entering a guilty plea: first step is the pleainquiry the second arraignment third facts and finding and fourthsentencing.

Accepting a guiltyplea leads to the victory in the trial. Prosecutors’ usage of pleabargaining secures them with a victory in cases, and judges supportplea bargain because it secures them from appeals and reversal oftrail. The increased number of appeals and more reversal of trialpersuades judges and prosecutors of the usefulness of plea bargainingfor prosecutors more appeals means more prosecutorial duty whilereversal brings reputational damages to judges. As for criminaldefendants, a guilty plea is a safe strategy to escape uncertaintyand avoid the strictest sentences. Through plea bargaining, thesystem protects itself from factual and legal errors, the suspectexcludes any kind of guilty doubt by recognizing it, and byrepudiating the right to trial and the right to complaint there is nopossibility to any court proclaiming fault on the appeal.

However, there areadverse effects of a guilty plea. This involves the likelihood ofinnocent people who find themselves accused of crimes feelingpressured to plead guilty due to fear of a stricter sentence. Thereis also a risk of unequal treatment before the court. For instance,if a defendant provides evidence on another defendant, they may ableto receive a lesser sentence than those without evidence.

References

Siegel, L. J., Schmalleger, F., &amp Worrall, J. L. (2015). Courtsand criminal justice in America (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson.

Combs N. A (2002) ‘Copping a plea to genocide: the plea bargains tointernational crimes’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review151