[ACS Blog has an example of a judge pushing for better oversight of plea bargains here.]
The criminal justice system is an imperfect system that involves various imperfections in its attempt to obtain that vague thing we call "justice." This includes plea bargaining, which this article examines in respect to the at first blush perhaps unreasonable concept of pleading guilty while actually being innocent. But, it really is not surprising, and in a practical sense this isn't that hard to understand.
As with plea bargaining generally, the ideal solution is a tough nut to crack given the realities of the situation. The article notes three primary reasons people in this situation plead guilty: they are charged for minor crimes [who might not have a constitutional right to an attorney, since that is only required in various cases for felonies] and a plea will get things over with (e.g., probation instead of an extended process, which might include detention), those who win on appeal but prosecutors refuse to simply let them free and those who take a gamblers calculated risk that not accepting the plea will lead to longer sentences, perhaps even the death penalty. I would add some others plea while innocent for other reasons, such as immaturity or mental deficiency.
Some think the idea situation is just to focus on the truth here, allowing the system to decide innocent and guilt. I find this a tad naive -- we know the system is flawed, and forcing people to stay in prison for perhaps years more against their will since "justice" requires it seems downright cruel. The article notes that some countries do not use plea bargaining and the amount of cases does overwhelm the system. Such countries have various differences from ours, including less cases overall and even if the person loses, the penalty is often much lower. In various cases, going to trial does not seem logical to me. And, in those other countries, various similar things probably occur, but in different ways.
The article also denounces the so-called Alford plea where a person personally thinks s/he is innocent but is allowed to plea anyway. I am inclined to see the logic of such pleas. To me, in fact, the accused really is so biased that legally speaking, s/he is not able to have the "reason" to determine the legal guilt involved. Reasonable doubt" here is a determination of neutral decision-makers, not those so self-interested that they are unable to do so. The accused can accept that legally the state has a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" without personally accepting guilt. The test is not violated because some one person, for whatever reason, disagrees (except if said person is a juror, most states requiring a unanimous jury), especially the self-interested defendant.
Surely, there is a problem of coercion here, but it seems impractical and on some level wrongly paternalistic to refuse to allow defendants some ability to take the best deal among imperfect options. A couple recent cases (cited in the article) had the Supreme Court provide guidelines to require some oversight to the process. Scalia in dissent decried the normalization of the distasteful practice of plea bargaining. As I said at the time, one is cynical here, since it is not like he is for stopping the process. He just rather not have judges get their hands dirty trying to make the system somewhat more fair, even as it occurs in most cases.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think judges and prosecutors should just cynically allow defendants to take pleas because it is the best bargain possible. Judges should be careful to determine that the pleas are truly informed and knowledgeable, the cases where the person does not have a lawyer of particular concern. If there is no actual reasonable basis for guilt, the judges cannot look away. When severe crimes, especially the death penalty, are involved, some too heavy coercion might be shown in various cases. The case of prosecutors refusing to accept the innocence of those found to be in post-conviction appeals etc. is also a problem and the Hobson's Choice made here by the defendants should be recognized, even if we are left with that or nothing.
And, yes, the whole process would be messy, but pretending that we can just do away with it is rather naive if not sometimes rather misguided.
The criminal justice system is an imperfect system that involves various imperfections in its attempt to obtain that vague thing we call "justice." This includes plea bargaining, which this article examines in respect to the at first blush perhaps unreasonable concept of pleading guilty while actually being innocent. But, it really is not surprising, and in a practical sense this isn't that hard to understand.
As with plea bargaining generally, the ideal solution is a tough nut to crack given the realities of the situation. The article notes three primary reasons people in this situation plead guilty: they are charged for minor crimes [who might not have a constitutional right to an attorney, since that is only required in various cases for felonies] and a plea will get things over with (e.g., probation instead of an extended process, which might include detention), those who win on appeal but prosecutors refuse to simply let them free and those who take a gamblers calculated risk that not accepting the plea will lead to longer sentences, perhaps even the death penalty. I would add some others plea while innocent for other reasons, such as immaturity or mental deficiency.
Some think the idea situation is just to focus on the truth here, allowing the system to decide innocent and guilt. I find this a tad naive -- we know the system is flawed, and forcing people to stay in prison for perhaps years more against their will since "justice" requires it seems downright cruel. The article notes that some countries do not use plea bargaining and the amount of cases does overwhelm the system. Such countries have various differences from ours, including less cases overall and even if the person loses, the penalty is often much lower. In various cases, going to trial does not seem logical to me. And, in those other countries, various similar things probably occur, but in different ways.
The article also denounces the so-called Alford plea where a person personally thinks s/he is innocent but is allowed to plea anyway. I am inclined to see the logic of such pleas. To me, in fact, the accused really is so biased that legally speaking, s/he is not able to have the "reason" to determine the legal guilt involved. Reasonable doubt" here is a determination of neutral decision-makers, not those so self-interested that they are unable to do so. The accused can accept that legally the state has a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" without personally accepting guilt. The test is not violated because some one person, for whatever reason, disagrees (except if said person is a juror, most states requiring a unanimous jury), especially the self-interested defendant.
Surely, there is a problem of coercion here, but it seems impractical and on some level wrongly paternalistic to refuse to allow defendants some ability to take the best deal among imperfect options. A couple recent cases (cited in the article) had the Supreme Court provide guidelines to require some oversight to the process. Scalia in dissent decried the normalization of the distasteful practice of plea bargaining. As I said at the time, one is cynical here, since it is not like he is for stopping the process. He just rather not have judges get their hands dirty trying to make the system somewhat more fair, even as it occurs in most cases.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think judges and prosecutors should just cynically allow defendants to take pleas because it is the best bargain possible. Judges should be careful to determine that the pleas are truly informed and knowledgeable, the cases where the person does not have a lawyer of particular concern. If there is no actual reasonable basis for guilt, the judges cannot look away. When severe crimes, especially the death penalty, are involved, some too heavy coercion might be shown in various cases. The case of prosecutors refusing to accept the innocence of those found to be in post-conviction appeals etc. is also a problem and the Hobson's Choice made here by the defendants should be recognized, even if we are left with that or nothing.
And, yes, the whole process would be messy, but pretending that we can just do away with it is rather naive if not sometimes rather misguided.