The following are abstracts from the ABA report:
“While the plea bargaining process in the United States is broad and varied, the Task Force determined that it was vitally important to craft a single set of principles to guide plea practices generally. These principles should be shared widely with members of the criminal justice community so that they might influence behavior and decision-making moving forward. These principles represent our conclusions about how plea bargaining
should operate within our larger criminal justice system, a system based on the fundamental Constitutional right to trial.
“In general, while some difference between then sentence offered prior to trial and the sentence received after trial is permissible, a substantial difference undermines the integrity of the criminal system and reflects a penalty for exercising one’s right to trial. This differential, often referred to as the trial penalty, should be eliminated.”
“The criminal justice system should recognize that plea bargaining induces defendants to plead guilty for
various reasons, some of which have little or nothing to do with factual and legal guilt. In the current system,
innocent people sometimes plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.”
One major concern is the “trial penalty,” where defendants who choose to go to trial are often punished with harsher sentences than those who plead guilty. This is largely due to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which require certain minimum sentences for certain crimes, often without taking mitigating factors into account. As a result, prosecutors may leverage these mandatory minimums against defendants to encourage them to plead guilty, or seek harsher sentences for those who refuse by overcharging the defendant and convincing juries it is necessary.
This convergence leads to the “trial penalty,” where a defendant who insists on going to trial and is found guilty can be given much harsher sentences than if they had accepted a plea bargain. This penalty can be especially severe for those who face mandatory minimum sentences, such as drug offenses r other offenses where the prosecutors choose to overcharge a defendant.
On top of this, the plea bargaining process itself can be flawed, with defendants often faced with confusing and coercive pressure to accept a plea deal, particularly if they lack adequate legal representation.
The consequences of these issues can be dire for defendants and for the criminal justice system as a whole. Research has shown that plea bargains result in higher rates of racial disparity and impoverishment among criminal defendants. It also leads to innocent defendants serving excessive sentences because they selected to stand on the principle that innocent people don’t take plea deals. Big mistake!
It is clear that the plea bargain process needs reform. Some argue that mandatory minimums need to be abolished. Others advocate for better access to legal representation and fair plea bargaining practices.
Ultimately, it is up criminal justice reform advocates, faith-based organizations, civic organizations and hopefully lawmakers and legal professionals to collaborate to improve the plea bargaining process. We must recognize that the effects of the trial penalty cause extreme harm to innocent defendants and undermines our trust in the criminal justice system. Only through continued advocacy, reform and education can things change for the better.