“Nolo Contendere” – I do not wish to contend, a Latin expression for “no contest.” which would means that accused does not accept or deny the charges but agrees to accept punishment.
A pretrial negotiation between the accused and the prosecution, where the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution.
DEFINITION:
Plea Bargaining is a bargain where a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutors in return drop more serious charges.
Plea Bargaining can be defined as pre-trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecution during which the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution.
As per the LEXICO (dictionary) plea bargaining means for an arrangement between prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence or an agreement to drop other charges.
Whereas The CAMBRIDGE (dictionary) defines it as a legal process in which someone who has been accused of a crime is allowed to admit to being guilty of a less serious crime, in order to avoid a trial.
MERRIAM WEBSTER (dictionary) elucidates plea bargaining as the negotiation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plead guilty to a reduced charge.
INTRODUCTION
Plea bargaining is an arrangement between the prosecutor and defendant in which the accused agrees to plead guilty to some charges or the original charge and in return get some concessions from the prosecutors in the criminal case. When the Government has a strong case, it may offer the defendant or the accused a plea deal to avoid trial which ultimately saves time which is an important essence during trial and particularly in criminal justice system it also reduces accused’s exposure to a lengthier sentence. It is essentially derived from the principal of ‘Nalo Contendere’ which literary means ‘I do not wish to contend’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted this doctrine as an “implied confession, a quasi confession of guilt, a formal declaration that the accused will not contend, a query directed to the court to decide a plea guilt, a promise between the Government and the accused and a government agreement on the part of the accused that the charge of the accused must be considered as true for the purpose of a particular case only.
A plea bargain is defined as an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and the defendant where the prosecutor convinces the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser charge or to the original charge with a recommendation of a lighter sentence. A plea bargain allows the defendant to skip the lengthy process of a court trial and to avoid being convicted of the possible stronger charge.
BACKGROUND:
It would be wrong to assume that the concept of Plea Bargaining found favor of courts only in the recent past. The concept finds its origin in the American Judiciary from 19th century itself. The bill of Rights makes no mention of the practice when establishing the fair trial principle in the sixth amendment but the constitutionality of the Plea Bargaining had constantly been upheld there.
In the Jury System, the need for plea bargaining was not felt because there was no legal representation. Later on, in 1960 legal representation was allowed and the need for Plea Bargaining was felt although the traces of the origin of the concept of Plea Bargaining are in American legal history. This concept has been used since the 19th century. Judges used this bargaining to encourage confessions.
BENEFITS OF PLEA BARGAINING:
Plea bargaining is the primary apparatus through which judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys cooperate and work together toward their individual and collective goals.
The primary benefit of plea bargaining for both the prosecution and the defense is that there is no risk of complete loss at trial. In cases in which evidence for or against a defendant is questionable, bargains may represent a feasible way for the attorneys to minimize their potential losses by settling on a mutually acceptable outcome. Plea bargaining can also be a way for the courts to preserve scarce resources for the cases that need them most.
Plea bargaining allows defense advocates to increase their efficiency and profits, because they can invest less time on plea-bargained cases. Disposing of cases efficiently is important for both public and private attorneys. Public defenders are sometimes responsible for handling huge caseloads, and private attorneys can make more money by bargaining than by going to trial. When prosecutors issue charges that are arguably unmerited, defense attorneys can use negotiation to achieve charge reductions. Defense attorneys may threaten to file many pretrial motions or to present an exceptionally zealous defense if prosecutors will not cooperate.
Judges also benefit from plea bargaining. The practice allows judges to preside over efficient trials, to minimize the risk of rulings being overturned on appeal, and to avoid the necessity of making rulings during trial. Most important to some judges, however, is that plea bargains remove the burden of determining guilt, and the practice allows them to share the responsibility for sentencing with the attorneys who fashioned the bargain. Although plea bargains must be approved by judges before whom they are brought, judges rarely refuse approval unless they feel that the defendant is legally innocent or has been coerced into pleading guilty or unless the bargain calls for a penalty that the judge believes is excessively harsh or lenient.
Sometimes even victims prefer plea bargains to trials. Plea bargains allow victims to avoid testifying in court, which may be frightening or upsetting, especially for victims of violent crimes. Some victims also appreciate the certainty provided by plea bargains; they need not worry about the emotional trauma of dealing with the acquittal of someone they feel is guilty.
PLEA BARGAINING CRITICISM:
Many individuals complain that plea bargaining allows offenders to escape appropriate punishment for their crimes. Others feel that the existence of plea bargains penalizes those who exercise their constitutional right to trial. Still others argue that innocent defendants sometimes agree to plea bargains because they are bewildered by the justice system and do not know what to do. Because of such criticisms, some jurisdictions have attempted to ban the practice.
CONCLUSION:
Plea bargaining helps in fast disposal of cases by being a beneficiary for both sides, the defendant and the prosecution. It helps the advocate to defend their client in easy way. Long- standing disputes can be easily resolved. It helps in reducing the record of less serious offences in the court and this can be good for the accused when he is convicted later in the future. It also helps in avoiding publicity by fast settlement of cases.
On the other side, the reasons for introducing plea bargaining are the overcrowding of jails, high rates of acquittal, torture of trial prisoners etc. But the main reason behind all this is delay in trial process. It has many disadvantages which harm the base of prosperity in the country. It demolishes independent judicial authority. The role of victim in the process affects corruption which ultimately defeats the purpose of plea bargaining.
To sum up, while plea bargaining is beneficial to the accused and victim of a crime; enough safeguards are required to be placed to stop possible abuse of this process. Plea bargain is a pragmatic vision to overcome crowded criminal courts and prisons and a potential way to improve litigation efficiency and rationalize judicial resources, infrastructure and expenses.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
