CJ 100 Lecture Notes - Lecture 47: Alan Dershowitz
Should Plea Bargaining Be Abolished?
Plea bargaining is a controversial part of the justice process.
Plea bargaining should be abolished
Arguments for abolition of plea bargaining raise issues of rights, fairness, and just
punishment.
1. Plea bargaining is unfair because defendants forfeit some of their rights,
including the right to trial by jury.
2. Plea bargaining allow criminals to defeat justice, thus diminishing the public's
respect for the criminal justice process.
3. The practice of giving criminals who plea bargain lighter sentences results in
unjust sentences in which the punishment is too lenient given the severity of the
crime.
4. Plea bargaining raises the possibility that innocent people will plead guilty to
crimes they didn't commit.
Plea bargaining should not be abolished
Defenders of plea bargaining stress its practical benefits.
1. Plea bargaining allows criminal justice personnel to individualize punishments
and make them less severe.
2. Plea bargaining is an administrative necessity—without it, courts would be
flooded and the justice process would get bogged down.
3. Plea bargaining saves the prosecution, the courts, and the defendant the costs of
going to trial.
Evaluating plea bargaining
Because of the practical benefits of plea bargaining, it is doubtful it will be eliminated
anytime soon. At this time, the consensus is that any injustice and unfairness that plea
bargaining may introduce into the justice process is at least offset by benefits flowing to
both the state and the defendant.
Introducing Defendants' Rights
Both sides in The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995),
invoked the phrase “search for the truth.” Prosecutors claimed they were searching for
the truth and that the defense was trying to hide the truth. Defense attorneys asserted
that prosecutors were putting barriers in the path of finding the truth. Were both sides
more interested in winning than in discovering the truth?
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argues that the criminal courts process features
multiple goals. Seeking the truth is an important goal—did the defendant commit the
crime that he or she is accused of committing? Protecting innocent citizens is a
second goal. Precautions are taken at various stages in the processing of criminal
cases so that innocent people aren't convicted. Ensuring fairness is a third goal.
Courts in the United States are judged not only on the accuracy of their results, but also
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Plea bargaining is a controversial part of the justice process. Because of the practical benefits of plea bargaining, it is doubtful it will be eliminated anytime soon. At this time, the consensus is that any injustice and unfairness that plea bargaining may introduce into the justice process is at least offset by benefits flowing to both the state and the defendant. Defense attorneys asserted that prosecutors were putting barriers in the path of finding the truth. Harvard law professor alan dershowitz argues that the criminal courts process features multiple goals. Precautions are taken at various stages in the processing of criminal cases so that innocent people aren"t convicted. Courts in the united states are judged not only on the accuracy of their results, but also on the fairness of their process. Both the fifth and the fourteenth amendments guarantee due process, or fundamental fairness under the law, to all citizens who are accused of crimes.
