Should Plea Bargaining Be Allowed?
.Lauren.
Posts: 7,864 Forum Member
✭
I have been watching a fair amount of criminal programmes recently mainly focusing on US crimes and many result in lesser charges for criminals if they enter a plea bargain. Or sometimes they get immunity from prosecution if they testify against someone else.
Is this something you feel should be allowed? Do you think it results in better convictions or do you think it encourages the plea bargainer to lie to get out of a prison sentence? Etc etc.
Is this something you feel should be allowed? Do you think it results in better convictions or do you think it encourages the plea bargainer to lie to get out of a prison sentence? Etc etc.
0
Comments
Had I plead not guilty, could have face up to 2 years in jail, or £2500 fine
I knew I was guilty, but laywer wanted me to plead not guilty, basicly I wanted to get things over, and try to get my life back
Why should someone who pleads guilty get less of a sentence than someone who is found guilty of exactly the same crime?
Also I think, especially in the US, you get a lot of people who are found guilty and even sentenced to death solely on the testimony of one person who has been given immunity if they testify against the defendant.
I get that the process is longer without these things, but I think integrity is more important.
I know I wouldn't.
I say it is a good thing if it leads to someone bigger.
As highlighted most recently in the Twitter case I believe
Would I rather both guilty parties recieved jail sentences instead of just the one?
Yes.
There is no way the courts would plea-bargain with a murderer in a murder case anyway. The information and co-operation provided by perp A would be taken into consideration by the court. Maybe that would result in a slight reduction in sentence. More importantly it would stand in the offender's favour for any future applications for parole.
I understand the reasons for it but gives the impression of a justice system acting as a revolving door rather than a method of determining the truth and any guilt from that truth.
Someone commits murder so we're just gonna murder him in return only our form of murder is legal and less barbaric. Oh hang on maybe not. Because we keep people on death row for years not knowing what day or when or if they're gonna be killed sometimes not even guilty so it's like every day they live in fear of being put to death. At least someone who's been murdered doesn't know it's gonna happen.
Not saying murder is right but how is submitting someone to years of day after day thinking this may be their final day to die possibly be more humane than a quick or fast shooting for example?
And this is somehow right? Legalised slow killing playing tortureous psychological mind games is ok. This makes you no better than the person who committed the murder. And I always though Americans were Christians. Jesus never said lets take revenge he said turn the other cheek. Putting someone to death makes you no less of a killer than the one who did the murder.
Well yes, but what if a very bad criminal gets away with it because they plea bargain? It shouldn't be a case of one or the other.
Plea bargaining is typically only used to allow someone to skate on a more minor infraction to get someone much worse. I don't think murderers would be allowed to cut a deal, for example. Imagine the outrage.
FRom what I have read and seen major suspects who have been directly involved in a murder have been able to walk free for pointing the finger at someone else.
I think in some cases there is a need to find someone, anyone guilty that the integrity of the whole thing is lost.