Talk:Plea bargain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Major Changes 2 Speedy trial in the US 3 Revert back to Plea Bargain 3.1 But, "plea bargain" is not the same as "guilty plea" 4 Comment moved from main page 5 misc 6 Poverty and plea bargains 7 Sources 8 UK case?

[edit] Major Changes

I have started a major re-write of this. Because there are a lot of contributors, I will work on it episodically. For starters, I have re-ordered many of the paragraphs and added subject headings. I have two suggestions for organization, first is the more traditional subject heading by country, and second is to separate the article in to the systemic effects of plea bargains (ie case managment) and the individual effects (such as corecion). Manney 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy trial in the US

Cut this sentence:

Plea bargaining also helps courts and prosecutors manage caseloads. In the United States, defendants must be brought to trial within six months of a not guilty plea. If the trial is not held within six months, the case is dismissed. Most jurisdictions, however, do not have enough judges, prosecutors or courtrooms to try every criminal case before a jury within six months. By plea bargaining, prosecutors can reduce the number of cases set for trial so that cases do not get dismissed.

This is certainly not correct throughout the United States. It appears to be a periphrasis of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 which applies only to cases prosecuted in federal court. Ellsworth 19:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert back to Plea Bargain

I think this page should go back to "Plea Bargain". I explained my reasons on Neutrality's talk page after his changes, I thought it would be easier to talk about this if I moved the conversation to here:

Hi i am just left wandering why the change from plea barganing to plea agreement through the whole article. Just Curious. Mexaguil 05:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was curious about that as well. The commonly accepted term is "plea bargain" or "plea bargaining". While "plea agreement" describes the same thing, it is not nearly as widely used. The general public is familiar with the former term. Before I change it back I wanted to get your input. Tufflaw 15:06, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

"Plea bargain" suggests a point of view (that the deals made are "bargains" for the defendant). A google search also shows that "plea bargain" only gets a nominally higher number of hits over "plea agreement." And on Google News, "plea agreement" gets 4,940 hits, while "plea bargain" gets only 4,330. This demonstrates that "plea agreement" is the preferred neutral term used in the news media. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 15:14, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - I would note however that if you check Google for both "plea bargain" and "plea bargaining" there are twice as many hits as "plea agreement". Additionally, there is no entry in Black's Law Dictionary for plea agreement, but it's only listed as an alternate term for plea bargain: "plea bargain, n. A negotiated agreement between a prosector and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the prosecutor, usu. a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the other charges. - Also termed plea agreement; negotiated plea; sentence bargain." Also listed in Black's are "charge bargain" and "sentence bargain". Clearly "bargain" is the more commonly accepted term in the legal community. Whether the media uses a term more or less doesn't really have anything to do with the neutrality of the term - the issue is whether the term being used is correct or not (the media still uses the term "alleged suspect" which is ridiculous). This is a legal term of art and can't be considered POV. The preferred term in the legal community is "plea bargain". Tufflaw 15:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to try to reach some kind of consensus before switching it back, any thoughts? Tufflaw 04:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

According to your evedence, i support Plea Bargaining' as the better term. Mexaguil 11:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Changed it back to the legally accurate version. Tufflaw 05:37, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] But, "plea bargain" is not the same as "guilty plea"

As a longtime radio reporter who has attended hundreds of court cases, I can tell you from first-hand experience that "guilty plea" and "plea bargain" are not necessarily synonymous (though they can be). First, "plea bargain" presumes a deal has been made between prosecuting and defense attorneys (subject to the judge's approval) that says the defendant agrees to serve (jail/house arrest/probation/community service/etc.) time in exchange for the guilty plea, thereby foregoing the time and expense of a criminal trial. A "guilty plea" can (and is allowed to) be made with no such agreement, with the defendant (presumably) understanding he could receive the full maximum punishment for the crime as the result of the plea. In addition, a "plea bargain" can be reached allowing the defendant to plead "nolo contendere" (or, "no contest"), which carries the identical legal weight as a guilty plea, but is not the same (as if to say, "I'm not admitting my guilt, but I'm not denying it"). Therefore, unless I'm overruled for some reason, I'm changing guilty plea to redirect instead to plea. RadioKirk 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment moved from main page

This should be listed under coercion. The state lists the maximum charges and threatens to give the maximum sentence unless you give up your rights and plead guilty to a lesser charge. This leads innocent people to having convictions for crimes they did not commit, and giving lighter sentences to real criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.146.78 (talk • contribs)

The above entry is biased, uninformed baloney.

[edit] misc

your mother!!!!! At the bottom of a plea bargain I witnessed, it said the plea bargain is null and void if any of the following is true:........... one of the items was: if the defendant was on probation, for an offense prior to this one, at the time the current offense took place. .. ..Does this clause mean what it says, or can a prosecutor always have the option to look the "other way"? .. ..Given that the different city jurisdictions are not integrated with their criminal database systems, how would the court in the current trial jurisdiction know about the crime the defendant was on probation for in a different jurisdiction, at the time he committed the current offense?

To answer your question:

Since the agreement is a contract between the defendant and prosecutor, the prosecutor can 'look the other way' if it turns out the defendant was on probation, etc.

However, a Judge may not look the other way, and decide not to accept the agreement if he or she finds out the defendant was on probation. In serious cases, Judges routinely get a report on the defendant which details their past criminal history. These usually, but not always, list the defendant's past history on probation.

P.S. to poster above: was 'your mother' the defendant? You sure are an angry kid. But to answer your foolish question: if the defendant lies about his criminal record, then he doesn't get the benefit of his bargain. It's that simple. Perhaps you think it is unfair that a criminal tell the truth, but the rest of don't. If your mother didn't want the plea agreement she didn't have to take it, and if your mother was on probation, she should have admitted it.

[edit] Poverty and plea bargains

Plea bargaining is generally explained as helping to reduce the expense/caseload for the judicial system, or to average the probability of conviction. As wealthy defendants are clearly more capable of prolonging a trial, and generally have a better chance of acquittal, do existing guidelines explicitly recommend more lenient plea bargain offers to wealthier defendants? Mike Serfas 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I would like a source for the claim that a federal law, enacted this January prevents reductions in sentences of more than 50%. wikipedia is literally the ONLY source I can find for this claim and I have done extensive research, encluding the congressional library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demotheses (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK case?

See this BBC News article: "Rahman admitted the offences as part of a plea bargain agreed after the judge, his Honour Clement Goldstone QC, indicated that the defendant would only be jailed for a maximum of six years if he was to plead guilty and avoid a trial." Note the specific jail time - that seems to me as a layperson to go against what is said about England and Wales in the Wikipedia article. Could someone with better knowledge please explain? 86.132.138.84 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)