jonjohnson021

The right to trial dates back to the commonwealth roots of the United States and is guaranteed under the 6^th amendment to the Constitution. Today, having stood the test of time, the right to trial remains an option for anyone accused of wrongdoing in this country. Something has changed, however. A person can no longer without means or competent attorneys, expect the same justice as one who has money. These defendants can be frightened and legally uneducated. They might be given advice that should they go to trial, they would be convicted and given a more lengthy prison term, and they are counseled that a plea agreement would bring about less time incarcerated (Sarokin, 2012).  Some of these people receiving this advice may in fact be innocent altogether, which is a frightening thought. There are times when a plea agreement would be useful, such as to possibly get a co-defendant to testify against the other, or when one’s criminal record does not warrant a full blown prosecution. Plea bargains are not offered to people equally, but instead they are used as a way to obtain a higher conviction rate for prosecutors, perpetuated by a defendant’s lack of monetary resources to defend his or herself.

The main reason behind plea bargaining with indigent defendants is simply due to the expense of trial. The time spent on a criminal trial, let alone a sensational case can be very costly to taxpayers. The cost to an effective defense can be very burdensome. According to Liptak, “Fifty years ago, in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that poor people accused of serious crimes were entitled to lawyers paid for by the government. But the court did not say how the lawyers should be chosen, how much they should be paid or how to make sure they defended their clients with vigor and care.” (Liptak, 2014 paragraph 1). In most cases the state or government will have a limit on what a public defender can spend to defend their indigent client. These spending limits vary from state to state and from case to case, with no one really knowing what they are. Whatever the reason, public defenders by and large are overworked with huge case loads.” It’s no wonder that many well-meaning defense lawyers are sucked into a “meet ’em and plead ’em” routine (PD parlance for meeting clients just a few minutes or hours before their hearings and then encouraging them to admit guilt just to get rid of the case).” (Levintova, Lee, and Brownell, 2013 paragraph 4). Some jurisdictions simply do not have the available funds to support a public defender at all. In these cases a private practice attorney may be assigned. These lawyers are still expected to represent their client zealously, but without pay, what is the incentive? Most often cases end up settled without trial.

When a person decides the evidence in the case against them is substantial, they may wish to consider offers of pretrial settlement. Should a person still take their case to trial and lose, the judge is likely to impose a much greater penalty. Why would a court give a more harsh punishment to a person for going to trial? Oftentimes it is due to new mandatory sentencing guidelines, enacted through state and federal legislation. Prosecutors will also use these tougher sentencing mandates as leverage against an indigent defendant. The difference between plea bargaining punishment and post-conviction punishment is a large one, so wide in fact that it may be a coercive edge to prosecutors and used to punish defendants for exercising their right to trial. (Oppel Jr., 2015). This is simply not fair justice.

The prosecutors of crime need to be more equitable when they offer plea agreements or settlements to satisfy lawsuits. Do not plea bargain just because the defendant cannot afford to defend his or herself. Offer it solely based on the merits of a case and not a person’s social status. Also judges should better govern their court rooms and ensure that prosecutors do not use plea bargaining coercion to ensure a conviction. With this practice justice would be best served and would truly be an example of how fair and impartial our system of law is.