The article by Lynch “The case Against Plea Bargaining”

The Case Against Plea Bargaining by Lynch

The case Against Plea Bargaining by Lynch critiques the idea of plea-bargaining as it is applied in the United States. The author criticizes the US Supreme Court for supporting the right of the prosecution to negotiate with an offender. (Lynch, 2003). In order to obtain a lesser sentence, a defendant must forfeit their right to a fair trial through plea bargaining. By ruling that the prosecution could negotiate with an accused individual in the Bordenkircher v. Haye case, the Supreme Court committed a legal error, the author argues.

Stringent Adherence to Constitutional Provisions

The author suggests stringent adherence to the constitutional provisions that call for a thorough trial. The Constitution demands a Grand jury to try a defendant and rests the burden of proving with the prosecution. The defendant has a right to the fair trial including the right to choose a person to represent him in the court. According to the author, the prosecutors are misusing their power and can arrest a person at will and charge them. If the accused oppose the proposal of the prosecution to plea bargain, then they punish him by imposing more charges to the person.<\/p>

Negative Role of Plea Bargaining in Society

The author has addressed the negative role of plea-bargaining in society. There are disparities among the sentences meted on individuals with the similar charge. Lynch does not seem to get any logic on why people should be compelled to confess to a wrong they did not commit in the name of saving the court’s time (Lynch, 2003). The author is requesting the legislatures and judiciary to make changes in the system and follow the provisions of the Constitution regarding human rights. Plea-bargaining, according to the author, is unconstitutional.

Critique of the Article

The findings of the author should be incorporated into the criminal justice system to some extent since not all parts of it can be practically utilized. The observation that the Constitution provides for a fair trial should be implemented where every accused person should be allowed a chance to face the court without coercion. The constitution does not foresee plea-bargaining; therefore, it should not be used in justice (Lynch, 2003). The author found out that there are disparities in sentencing people and discretionary power employed by the prosecution is abused. Therefore, failing to curtail the misuse of power is causing injustice to the defendant.

Prolonged and Congested Court System

The proposed solution by the author will lead to congestion in the court system. If plea-bargaining is abolished, the accused persons will not have a chance to bargain for their freedom or a lesser sentence, which reduces the rigorous judicial process. However, adopting plea bargaining amounts to engaging in a trade where one party is coerced to accept the terms of the other party unconditionally. Accused persons are subjected to an unfair trial for refusing to agree to the plea-bargaining request by the prosecution (Lynch, 2003). The court punishes the person for using its time, not because of the merit or evidence tendered by the prosecution.

Ramifications of Implementing the Author’s Suggestion

The ramification of implementing the suggestion of the author is a prolonged and congested court. Plea bargaining is in violation of the constitution and the courts have continued upholding the unconstitutional verdict rendered by the court in the Hayes case. The courts should not be concerned about the caseload but serving justice to the people.

Reference

Lynch, T. (2003). The case against plea bargaining. Regulation, 26, 24.