The concept of Plea Deal : Advantages and Disadvantages

Author: Shubhashree Panda, SOA National Institute of Law, Bhubaneswar

When the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or accept a specific sentence in exchange for some benefit, an arrangement between the defendant and the prosecution is called a plea deal such as reduction charges or a more lenient sentence. It is crucial to note that the deals to trial are an alternative that is often used in the legal proceedings. The legal proposals are that it helps to reduce the time and some resources are required for a full trial. It is also helpful for a guaranteed conviction without any legal trial process. The important key elements are guilty pleas that may be a lesser charge than the original one, recommendations are made in a specific sentence which is not binding on the judge and cooperation is a significant agreement between defendants with the authorities by providing necessary information on other criminal activity for the exchange of some reduced sentence.

In modern judicial system the plea deals are an evaluation that is closely tied to the development. Generally, country like United States emerged maximum number of criminal cases and that to be needed processed effectively. Before 20 th century there was no formal legal systems in the plea deal but that was not systematically implemented. Sometimes, defendants could confess with exchange of reduced punishment but that was not called a standardized or regulated process. During 20 th century urbanization and criminal activities rose hand to hand and courts became overburdened to solve these problems. So, there was need of some more organized system of plea deals to expeditious cases. During mid-20th century and above the plea deals has reached in top and became widespread across the globe. The US supreme court reinstituted its legality during 1970 in the two given case laws i.e., brady versus united states in 1970 and Santo Bello vs New York in 1971. This case laws made it cleared that plea deals become a part of constitutional. 

It is a complete negotiation between the defense and prosecution in the process of plea deals in which both sides are targeted to reach a compromise beneficial outcome. It has different stages. The important stages are firstly, charging in which the prosecution initially files charges against the defendant that may be multiple. Secondly, pre negotiation phase in which both the prosecution and defendant solve the problems between them by discussing themselves while considering the defendants willingness. The pre negotiation activities completely depend on the prosecutor's willingness to offer a plea deal and understand the convincing facilities. Negotiation is a process that may be offered by the prosecution or may by defendants. Either one can accept it or reject it which helps reduction in charges or a more lenient sentence. Plea deal is a deal the defendant will formally agree to plead guilty to the charges. On the other hand, the prosecutor may have agreed to recommend it or dismiss the charges. Judicial review is an important arrangement after the agreement is reached. When it has been reached the judge must approve it only when they believe that the terms are unreasonable or do not serve any justice. During the offering time of any sentence the judge may choose to follow the prosecution recommendation or to issue a different punishment. There are different types of plea deals that may be classified as charge plea deals, sentence plea deals, and fact plea deals. The charge plea deals only when the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge than initially filed. In sentence plea deals the defendant might plead guilty to robbery but ask for a sentence recommendation in a probation or a shorter jail imprisonment instead of the maximum sentence. Lastly in the fact plea deals the defendant might be agreed to plead guilty but denying certain facts. In this case the prosecution could use a more severe sentence.

Plea deals is a process that deals with a strategic legal maneuver that can have so many implications for the defendants in the prosecutor and the broader criminal justice systems. The inciting negotiation in the beginning the prosecuting offering offer to the defendants. This offer is mostly influenced by the strength of the evidence, the seriousness of the crimes and the goals of the prosecutor’s conviction. If the evidence goes against the defendant the case may be weak or complex. In this legal system the prosecutor may offer a deal in exchange for a guilty plea to a lesser charge. The dense role in the negotiation will assess the pros and cons of the plea deal. The defense attorney will be given advice to their client if or not the offer is in their best interest. In case of bargaining power if the defendant has wrong information or is willing to cooperate in this case. The plea deal power of the defense may increase. This can lead to a plea deal which includes reduction of substantial sentences or charges in exchange for cooperation. Prosecutors’ have the power to organize the charges and give the sentences that are concentrated on leverage over the negotiation process. In most of the cases prosecutors may overcharge to force defendants to protect a plea deal.

In case of prosecutors, it negotiates terms and determines with more severe charges for less charges. It is ensuring the prosecutors for fair and just plea deals. Prosecutors should be balanced to pursue justice with the requirement of resolving cases efficiently for the public justice and interests. It is the duty to ensure plea deals that are served for the public good and do not undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

In case of attorneys, it is helpful for protecting the clients’ rights that constitutionally defendants are protected during the plea deals process. The plea deals are voluntarily knowingly informed and making sure to all. Negotiation between the prosecutors and the defendants ensures that a plea deal is in their best interest. If the plea doesn’t favor anyone. The defense lawyer may advise the defendant to go for further trial.

Reduced sentence is a key advantage for the defendant that is the possibility of receiving a reduced sentence and it provides a lenient penalty than a trial conviction. Avoiding a lengthy trial can be emotionally and financially beneficial. It gives defendants a chance to avoid the financial burden of legal proceedings. Prosecutors save time and resources that are specially dealing with a high caseload. It is allowing the prosecutor to focus on more complex and serious matters. There is no certainty of conviction but plea deals guarantee conviction should be secured without any risk and uncertain trial outcome. For the judicial system the court backlog is reduced and the number of trials that are to be heard allows the court system to allocate resources to more cases of plea deals.

The important plea deals are coercion and pressure, overcharging and inequality in access. The innocent defendants may plead guilty to crimes though they did not commit. They admitted the crime because of fear of a harsh sentence that may be given during trial. In overcharging severe charges might be filed by the prosecutors that pressure headed by the defendants into accepting a plea deal. It is particularly connecting because it may result in the plea deals with fear of more severe punishment. In public perception it is just an impression but is not being fully served justice. When the defendant enforced serious crimes with reduced sentences through plea deals. It may lead to a sense of injustice in the community. Lastly inequality emerged due to lack of financial resources or those who have lack of legal skills to accept plea deals but actually they are not in their best interest.

Plea deals have been maintaining fairness in the criminal justice system and still facing many ethical challenges. These are consent, avoiding coercion and ensuring fairness. The defendant should understand the terms and conditions of the plea deal for the result of pleading guilty and the rights which are weaving ethical issues arise if a defendant is persuaded to take a plea without any understanding of the implications. When ethical concerns arise, the defendants are forced to accept plea deals out of fear or desperation that may be particularly dangerous only when this leads to wrongful convictions. Plea deals process should be free and fair but should not give unjust outcomes like offering lenient sentences to the prosecutors for serious crimes and encouraging the defense attorneys to take deals when they are not in their best interests.

Plea deals are an important and significant component of the criminal justice system that provides practical benefits like reducing case backlogs, expecting the legal process and offering defendants a chance to negotiate a lesser sentence. On the other hand, it plays a crucial role for predicting ethical challenges related to fairness, coercion and the potential for innocent defendants to accept their guilt. The application of plea deals undermines a tension between efficiency and justice. It is often necessary due practice to the overwhelming number of cases that must be ensured and safeguards for the public interest and rights. It protects the rights of defendants, prevents abuses and preserves public confidence in the present judicial systems. It is highly necessary for the modern and ethical oversight reforms that are essential in the plea deals systems for the purpose of achieving justice without hampering fundamental rights to maintain fairness and transparency in the present judicial system. Plea deals are a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system that provides efficiency and reduces the burden of the course. It is beneficial for the defendants against coercion, wrongful conviction and inequality of access to legal representation. Maintaining a balance between judicial efficiency and the protection of defendants rights for ensuring the plea deals in the interest of justice.