Utilizing The GCU ELibrary Collection For Research On Plea B

Utilizing The Gcu Elibrary Collection Research The Plea Bargaining Pr

Utilizing the GCU eLibrary collection, research the plea bargaining process. Write a positional essay of words that discusses the merits, deficits, and feasible alternatives of our limited funding for complete trials. The paper should focus on both the absolute merits of the plea bargaining process and the practical aspects of the practice given political realities. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the GCU Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.

Paper For Above instruction

Plea bargaining remains a dominant feature of the criminal justice system, particularly in contexts where resource constraints challenge the conduct of full trials. The process involves defendants typically agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for a plea bargain, which can expedite case resolution and reduce judicial burdens. This essay explores the benefits and drawbacks of plea bargaining and proposes feasible alternatives, especially considering limited funding for comprehensive trials amid political and fiscal realities.

Merits of the Plea Bargaining Process

One of the main merits is the significant reduction in the caseload that plea bargaining offers. Courts, often overwhelmed with cases, benefit economically by resolving cases swiftly without the need for lengthy trials, saving both judicial resources and taxpayer money (Bachman & Schutt, 2016). Plea bargaining reduces court congestion, which is crucial given the limited funding available for the judiciary. Faster resolutions mean more cases can be processed with the available resources, and offenders receive timely judgments, which may contribute to quicker rehabilitative or punitive actions.

Additionally, plea bargaining can benefit defendants by providing them with reduced sentences or lesser charges, serving as a form of negotiated justice. This process can also lessen the emotional and financial strain of prolonged trials on defendants and their families, making criminal justice more accessible for impoverished or resource-constrained populations (Klassen & Moss, 2018). Moreover, plea deals can allow prosecutors to focus on larger or more complex cases, ensuring resources are allocated more effectively.

Deficits of Plea Bargaining

Despite these advantages, plea bargaining brings with it significant criticisms. One concern is the risk of wrongful convictions due to coerced pleas, especially when defendants feel pressured to accept deals out of fear of harsher sentences if convicted at trial (Klein, 2017). This raises ethical issues regarding fairness and justice. Additionally, plea bargains may undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, as they can enable guilty parties to escape full accountability, thereby eroding the perceived legitimacy of justice processes.

Furthermore, plea bargaining can contribute to disparities and biases, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities who may feel compelled to accept deals due to systemic disadvantages (Alschuler, 2018). It also risks sacrificing the truth-finding function inherent in fully contested trials, potentially letting guilty individuals off with lighter sentences, which can undermine deterrence and justice.

Feasible Alternatives amid Limited Funding

Given the financial constraints confronting the justice system, alternative strategies should be considered. One approach is the implementation of specialized courts, such as drug courts and mental health courts, which focus resources on rehabilitative rather than purely punitive or trial-focused procedures (Marlowe & McCormick, 2017). These courts can prioritize individualized justice, reduce case backlogs, and provide cost-effective resolutions.

Another feasible alternative is investing in technology to facilitate virtual hearings and case management, which can reduce overheads and improve efficiency (Yin, 2019). Additionally, expanding diversion programs for lower-level offenses can diminish the reliance on full trials, providing offenders with options for community-based rehabilitation rather than lengthy court proceedings.

Furthermore, reforms in the plea bargaining framework can include transparency and oversight measures to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Enhancing prescriptive guidelines and judicial oversight can mitigate some of the systemic inequities associated with plea deals, fostering a system that is both efficient and just within current fiscal realities.

Practical and Political Considerations

Practical considerations highlight that plea bargaining aligns with the political realities of limited judicial budgets and strained resources. Politically, the system's reliance on plea deals is often justified by the need to reduce caseloads and manage public expectations of swift justice (Davis, 2016). However, balancing efficiency with fairness remains a challenge.

In conclusion, plea bargaining offers clear benefits in efficiency and resource management but raises concerns about fairness, justice, and equity. Alternatives like specialized courts, technological enhancements, and diversion programs offer promising avenues within fiscal constraints. A comprehensive approach combining these strategies, coupled with reform measures to enhance transparency, can address both practical needs and uphold fundamental principles of justice.

References

• Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2016). The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Sage Publications.
• Klassen, M., & Moss, A. (2018). Justice for Sale? The Impacts of Plea Bargaining on Criminal Justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(2), 245-265.
• Klein, R. (2017). The Coercion of Plea Bargaining. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165(5), 1477-1523.
• Alschuler, A. (2018). Disparities in Plea Bargaining and Their Effect on Marginalized Communities. Yale Law Journal, 126, 65-109.
• Marlowe, D. B., & McCormick, C. M. (2017). Evidence-Based Treatment and Supervision in Drug Courts. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 77, 53-62.
• Yin, R. (2019). Enhancing Judicial Efficiency through Technology: Virtual Courts and Case Management. Justice Systems Journal, 40(3), 237-255.
• Davis, J. (2016). Political and Practical Dimensions of Plea Bargaining Reforms. Public Policy & Administration, 31(4), 369-382.