This paper will discuss about the controversy toward plea bargains,
answering to main two questions which are 'Should the use of plea bargains be
eliminated, reduced, or retained?' and 'What can be done to reduce the misuse
of plea bargains?'.
I argue that plea bargains should be reduced. The reason why I argue it
should be 'reduced', not 'eliminated', is because plea bargains have some
several benefits. It helps streamline the legal process with reducing the waste
time spent on diverse cases that investigators must cope with. Plea bargains can
also incentivize defendants to admit guilt, providing closure to victims and
saving time and expenses associated with trials. It is playing a role of giving
opportunity of confession that can lead to save everyone's time and money.
On the other hand, plea bargains have critical side effects that can bring out
potential injustices and systemic problems. First, plea bargains can result the
wrongful conviction by pressuring innocent defendant to admit their guilt. It can
be the coercion, pushing them to accept the plea deal. Second, the growing
number of plea deals makes discrepancies in sentences more likely because
different people may receive different sentences for the same offenses.
Defendant who committed severe crime may abuse this system to bargain their
sentence, which can harm the victim twice. Third, the prevalence of plea
bargains are undermining the role of juries as it reducing the importance of
trials, veiling the pursuit of truth.
