Plea Bargaining

[john - uk]

Is it acceptable for murders are able to avoid a possible death sentence by entering into a pre-trial aggreement?

The more I study this and other death penalty web sites the more it angers me when I read how the perpetrators of some of the most vile, cold blooded killers can guarantee avoiding the death penalty simply by agreeing to plead guilty at trial. It continues to amaze me that someone like Eric Rudolph can even be considered for this.

I can see two (there maybe others) arguments for this arrangement, neither of which I agree with:

First - by plea bargaining the prosecuting authorities avoid the time and costs of a lengthy and potentially unsuccessful trial whilst pursuing a death sentence. To this I say "what price Justice?", by pursuing this argument they are saying that the victims life is worth less than those for whom the death penalty is sought.

Secondly - there may not be enough evidence to obtain a conviction without a guilty plea. Well, over the last twenty years or so we in this country have seen just how unsafe convictions based largely on confessions can be. Added to this are the cases where somebody agrees to give evidence at trial against somebody else in order to avoid the death penalty. Does anybody ever really question the motives of these people? Is it morally right that these should be able to avoid the death penalty themselves?

As I have said, I am against plea bargaining in principle. You cannot put a value on someones life and a Judge and jury should be the ones to impose the appropriate sentence. Wth continuing advances in scientific and forensic techniques and DNA technology the need for confession based convictions will become less and less provided the tax payer is will to pay for it.

Are the any other arguments to support plea bargaining?

[Katyusha]

Perhaps,but not for me :-)
In Europe,we don't have such strange things and I agree with it,I mean,can you estimate a price for a human life?

[Charlene]

One argument in support of plea bargaining is where there are multiple perpetrators in a murder case, yet one holds more responsibility or is the more heinous actor. In a case where there is not much good evidence, the prosecutor might offer to let the less culpable perpetrator avoid a death sentence in exchange for testimony that will help get a death sentence for the co-defendant.

johnuk said:

Is it acceptable for murders are able to avoid a possible death sentence by entering into a pre-trial aggreement?

The more I study this and other death penalty web sites the more it angers me when I read how the perpetrators of some of the most vile, cold blooded killers can guarantee avoiding the death penalty simply by agreeing to plead guilty at trial. It continues to amaze me that someone like Eric Rudolph can even be considered for this.

I can see two (there maybe others) arguments for this arrangement, neither of which I agree with:

First - by plea bargaining the prosecuting authorities avoid the time and costs of a lengthy and potentially unsuccessful trial whilst pursuing a death sentence. To this I say "what price Justice?", by pursuing this argument they are saying that the victims life is worth less than those for whom the death penalty is sought.

Secondly - there may not be enough evidence to obtain a conviction without a guilty plea. Well, over the last twenty years or so we in this country have seen just how unsafe convictions based largely on confessions can be. Added to this are the cases where somebody agrees to give evidence at trial against somebody else in order to avoid the death penalty. Does anybody ever really question the motives of these people? Is it morally right that these should be able to avoid the death penalty themselves?

As I have said, I am against plea bargaining in principle. You cannot put a value on someones life and a Judge and jury should be the ones to impose the appropriate sentence. Wth continuing advances in scientific and forensic techniques and DNA technology the need for confession based convictions will become less and less provided the tax payer is will to pay for it.

Are the any other arguments to support plea bargaining?

[sally104]

It may be a case of something like, the prosecution knows who did it but can't get a conviction against anyone unless someone sings. A plea bargain is a way of getting someone to sing.

[Rev. Agave]

my drunken opinion: they should be allowed to plea bargain for LI as opposed to the chair. they should not be able to avoid DR.

[Deleted]

First - by plea bargaining the prosecuting authorities avoid the time and costs of a lengthy and potentially unsuccessful trial whilst pursuing a death sentence. To this I say "what price Justice?", by pursuing this argument they are saying that the victims life is worth less than those for whom the death penalty is sought.

Secondly - there may not be enough evidence to obtain a conviction without a guilty plea. Well, over the last twenty years or so we in this country have seen just how unsafe convictions based largely on confessions can be. Added to this are the cases where somebody agrees to give evidence at trial against somebody else in order to avoid the death penalty. Does anybody ever really question the motives of these people? Is it morally right that these should be able to avoid the death penalty themselves?

These are both valid reasons. I don't like it when people who should get a death sentence plead to avoid it. Sometimes it is necessary because otherwise they would still be free to kill if they were found not guilty because the state didn't have enough evidence.

Here's something else to think about. Consider the amount of money we spend on the criminal justice system. Now consider that 99% of all convictions come from plea bargains. The process would grind to a stop in less than 1 week if we did not plea bargain. Then most people would be set free because we could not give them a speedy trial.

[RickZ]

CM said:

Here's something else to think about. Consider the amount of money we spend on the criminal justice system. Now consider that 99% of all convictions come from plea bargains. The process would grind to a stop in less than 1 week if we did not plea bargain. Then most people would be set free because we could not give them a speedy trial.

All true. One more aspect of plea bargaining is that when one pleads guilty and elocutes to the crime in open court, there is no appeal of the conviction allowed, unless egregious error on the prosecutors' part can be shown, as happened with that undercover policeman in Tulia, Texas.

[Felix2]

without it you'd get little info sometimes I guess.

[gotchawidurpntsdwn]

If you can't get information without plea bargaining... is there any information to get?

[RickZ]

gotchawidurpntsdwn said:

If you can't get information without plea bargaining... is there any information to get?

Sometimes, like where the bodies are literally buried.