Comparing Plea Bargaining and Abbreviated Trial Procedures

Author(s):  
Gwladys Gilliéron

This chapter compares U.S. plea bargaining with plea-bargaining-type procedures and penal orders in Continental Europe, with reference to Switzerland, Germany, and France. It first considers consensual criminal procedures across jurisdictions and why they exist, focusing on plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice system and abbreviated trial procedures in European civil law systems. It then examines the extent to which abbreviated trial procedures in civil law systems differ from plea bargaining in the U.S. system, the problems inherent in consensual criminal procedures, and the question of whether there are any solutions. In particular, it explains how plea bargaining and penal orders may lead to wrongful convictions. Finally, it discusses prospects for reform of plea bargaining in the United States and in civil law systems in Europe.

2019 ◽  
pp. 11-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucian E. Dervan

This chapter introduces the reader to plea bargaining. The chapter begins with a discussion of the mechanics of plea bargaining and the dominant forms of plea bargaining in the United States’ criminal justice system. In doing so, the chapter examines the manner in which defendants engage in bargaining and the shadow-of-trial model of bargaining. The chapter then discusses the historical rise of plea bargaining in the United States and considers whether today’s plea bargains reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s vision of the system as laid down in the case of Brady v. United States in 1970 (Brady v. United States, 1970). Finally, the chapter concludes by briefly examining several recent Supreme Court plea bargaining cases and considers whether a renewed focus on plea bargaining jurisprudence is materializing.


Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.


Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca K. Helm

Plea bargaining is a process in the criminal justice system through which a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a specified criminal charge in exchange for a concession from the prosecution. This may include the prosecution ceasing to pursue any other criminal charges against the defendant, or recommending a more lenient sentence than they would have recommended otherwise. Although other jurisdictions allow sentence or charge reductions in exchange for guilty pleas (which can be referred to as plea bargaining), plea bargaining is typically associated with the United States system, and is used most extensively in the United States. This bibliography will focus on plea bargaining in the United States, bringing in global comparisons where relevant. In the United States, the constitutionality of plea bargaining was established in 1970 in the case of Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). Today, plea bargaining is permitted in all states as well as in the federal system, and although there are some differences in regulation of pleas in each jurisdiction, plea bargaining is typically viewed as an essential and permanent component of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors are able to grant enticing concessions to incentivize defendants to plead guilty. In this context, the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, rather than jury trials. Currently, guilty pleas account for around 97 percent of criminal convictions at the federal level. However, the practice of plea bargaining has been the subject of debate among academics and legal practitioners. On the one hand, plea bargaining facilitates an efficient criminal justice system. Through increasing the number of cases resolved via guilty plea rather than trial, plea bargaining conserves resources, protects victims from the traumas involved in trial, and provides benefits to defendants through sentence or charge reductions. Many commentators believe that the US criminal justice system would be unsustainable without the vast majority of cases being resolved via guilty plea. However, the largely unregulated nature of the plea-bargaining system and particularly the concessions that can be offered by prosecutors in exchange for guilty pleas has led to a critical view of the practice from many commentators, who associate the practice with overzealous prosecution, wrongful conviction, and rights violations. Research suggests that the concessions offered by prosecutors in exchange for guilty pleas are leading to innocent, as well as guilty, defendants pleading guilty. This is known as plea bargaining’s “innocence problem.” As of 2018, the Innocence Project noted that 18 percent of known exonerees in the United States had originally pleaded guilty to the crime that they were accused of. Research examining plea bargaining includes traditional and empirical legal research, and, increasingly, social-science research examining the decision-making of defendants in the plea bargaining context.


2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynne Weathered

In recent years, hundreds of people have been exonerated overseas after demonstrating that they were wrongly convicted of crimes for which they spent many years in prison, and these are only the ones uncovered to date. Australia has its own sampling of known wrongful convictions. England, Canada and the United States have introduced different mechanisms to address in some fashion, the facilitation of exonerations. This article considers the current situation for the wrongly convicted in Australia, placing it within this international context. This comparison will demonstrate that Australia has fallen behind these other common law countries by failing to deliver new mechanisms, establish new bodies or incorporate new avenues that would enable the correction of wrongful conviction to occur. Wrongful conviction must now be recognised as an unenviable but inevitable part of any criminal justice system and a problem that should not be tolerated. Australia's criminal justice system must meet the challenge to update its provisions rather than continue to proceed under provisions other countries have identified as failing to meet the needs of the wrongly convicted.


Incarceration ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 263266632097780
Author(s):  
Alexandra Cox ◽  
Dwayne Betts

There are close to seven million people under correctional supervision in the United States, both in prison and in the community. The US criminal justice system is widely regarded as an inherently unmerciful institution by scholars and policymakers but also by people who have spent time in prison and their family members; it is deeply punitive, racist, expansive and damaging in its reach. In this article, we probe the meanings of mercy for the institution of parole.


Author(s):  
Robert A. Ferguson

This chapter addresses the question of whether Americans like to punish. The United States clearly punishes more heavily and for longer periods than other countries, with comparable social and political values. One can land in an American prison for life over minor offenses—a punishment not used for serious offenses in Western Europe. The leading comparativist on criminology, James Whitman, argues that a politics of dignity has instilled mercy and mildness in European systems, while leveling impulses, distrust of authority, and too much power in the people is said to have left the United States with a criminal justice system long in degradation and short on mercy.


Author(s):  
Corey Rayburn Yung

The American criminal justice system regarding sex is not just logically incoherent, it is also often morally bankrupt because it remains unexamined and poorly understood. This Article contends that there are actually common roots underlying the seemingly oppositional forces of social panic and denial, which explain why the United States has an endemic sexual violence problem. Both panic and denial reinforce the implicit, and sometimes explicit, desire to avoid substantive engagement with socially contentious issues related to sex. The use of residency restrictions and civil commitment fit the modern social goal of putting sex offenders out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Yet, those same desires also explain America’s unwillingness to believe victims of sexual violence and police failure to properly investigate criminal complaints. In this way, sex panic dovetails with sex denial—in both instances, American culture only permits a limited discussion and understanding of sex and sexual violence. The result is that our nation fails to take sex crime complaints seriously while overreacting to the few convictions that emerge from the hostile criminal justice system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document