Plea Bargains
Written By: Ryan McKinniss

The plea bargain is one of the most controversial issues in the criminal justice systems. There are two types of plea negotiation, but there are three main categories of plea bargains. They all include sentence reduction, and that’s were some of the controversy starts. Plea bargains also have some positives and negatives about them. Many people can argue for the use of plea bargains, but many can also argue against the use of plea bargains. I personally think they are helpful, but may be offered to easily. Plea bargaining is the process by which a person accused of a crime may bargain with the prosecutor to receive a lesser punishment. Typically, the accused person will plead guilty, sometimes to a lesser charge than the original one (to manslaughter rather than murder, for example). As stated by the Boston College Law Review, the U.S. Supreme Court estimates that at least ninety percent of criminal convictions are based on guilty pleas. Typically, defense counsel and the prosecutor negotiate the charges to be brought. If the bargain pertains to the sentence to be meted out, a judge may also participate unless barred from doing so. The main purpose for plea bargains is this process saves the government the time and cost of a jury trial in exchange for a reduced sentence. Defendants who plead guilty as part of a plea bargain give up three constitutional rights: the right of trial by jury, the right to confront and question one's accusers, and the right to refuse to incriminate oneself. However, it can speed up the criminal justice system, and an accused person can get a lessor punishment. The two types of plea bargains are explicit plea bargains and implicit plea bargains. Explicit plea bargains are those in which some concession has been granted to the defendant in exchange for his or her agreement to a guilty plea.