Difference between revisions of "India Criminal Defense Manual - Plea Bargaining/Guilty Pleas"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchDdemetriou (talk | contribs) |
Ddemetriou (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
'''Benefits of Pleading Guilty to the Accused''' | '''Benefits of Pleading Guilty to the Accused''' | ||
| − | The result of a guilty plea is often a reduction in charges (e.g., murder to manslaughter). Also, at the Magistrates discretion, if the agreed upon sentence from plea bargaining is the minimum sentence allowed, the judge can choose to impose as little as half that sentence, at his own discretion. A trial never has a guaranteed outcome. No matter how strong either side's case may be, there is always the possibility of loss for either side. Pleading guilty removes the process and the uncertainty of the trial, and provides a guaranteed penalty. The stress of criminal prosecution can be great on the accused and his family, and even though a guilty plea is being entered, many accused persons may prefer to put an end to the ordeal and have | + | The result of a guilty plea is often a reduction in charges (e.g., murder to manslaughter). Also, at the Magistrates discretion, if the agreed upon sentence from plea bargaining is the minimum sentence allowed, the judge can choose to impose as little as half that sentence, at his own discretion. A trial never has a guaranteed outcome. No matter how strong either side's case may be, there is always the possibility of loss for either side. Pleading guilty removes the process and the uncertainty of the trial, and provides a guaranteed penalty. The stress of criminal prosecution can be great on the accused and his family, and even though a guilty plea is being entered, many accused persons may prefer to put an end to the ordeal and have some sense of finality. From a practical standpoint, if the accused is paying for private counsel, entering a guilty plea removes the costs associated with a trial. Keep in mind, however, that all accused persons have a right to a |
| + | fair trial, not simply those who can afford it. The idea that entering a guilty plea costs less is simply a side effect of pleading and should not really be considered as a factor. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Negotiation Tips''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | The legal aid lawyer should discuss strategies and potential tactics for the negotiation, including whether to argue for a reduction of the charge (for instance, from first-degree murder to manslaughter), a specific recommendation for sentence (for example, 6 months in prison), and/or an agreement by the prosecutor not to oppose the accused's request for probation (supervision by the government for a specific period of time). It is always the accused's decision whether to enter into a plea agreement. The legal aid lawyer can only explain the benefits and drawbacks and make a recommendation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The legal aid lawyer should consider the severity of the crime, the strength of the evidence in the case, and the prospects of a guilty verdict at trial when preparing to negotiate with the prosecutor. He should also consider collateral consequences of a guilty verdict. The prosecutor typically may not offer a plea bargain if the alleged crime is particularly heinous or the case is highly publicized or politically charged. The accused may wish to reject a plea bargain if the accused believes that the possibility of acquittal (being found not guilty at trial) outweighs the possibility of conviction. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Benefits and Harms''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Plea bargaining is a controversial feature of the criminal justice system. Supporters argue that it resolves matters quickly, speeds court proceedings, reduces the number of cases in overburdened courts, guarantees convictions, reduces the number of people in overcrowded jails, helps prosecutors manage their caseloads and saves the government the time and cost of a trial. Opponents claim that plea bargaining can put pressure on accused persons to plead to crimes that they know they did not commit, and that the outcome of a plea bargain may depend strongly on the negotiating skills of the legal aid lawyer, which puts persons who can afford good lawyers at an advantage. The legal aid lawyer must be sure that the accused fully understands the rights he is waiving and the consequences he is facing as a result of a plea bargain. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is not denied that the introduction of plea bargaining mechanism is to reduce the gigantic load of criminal cases in India but one cannot overlook its controversial features also. It can allow the prosecution to obtain conviction from the accused that would have resulted in an acquittal at trial just because of hostile witness or lack of evidence. Some of the other lacuna in the concept of plea bargaining are as under: | ||
| + | * Involving the police in plea bargaining would invite coercion. | ||
| + | * By involving the court in plea bargaining process the court in partiality is impingent involving the victims in plea bargaining process would invite corruption. | ||
| + | * If the plead guilty application of the accused is rejected then the accused would fact a great hardship in future to prove himself innocent. | ||
| + | * Thus the legal aid lawyers should in compass the following minimum requirement: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
