INFLUENCE OF THE SENTENCING DISCOUNT IN INDUCING GUILTY PLEAS (FROM CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SELECTED READINGS, 1978, BY JOHN BALDWIN AND A KEITH BOTTOMLEY - SEE NCJ-55224)

• NCJ Number: 55227
• Author(s): J BALDWIN; M MCCONVILLE
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 13 pages
• Corporate Author: Biblio Distribution Ctr
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

VARIATIONS IN SENTENCING SEVERITY AMONG THREE GROUPS OF ENGLISH DEFENDANTS--THOSE WHO PLEADED NOT GUILTY, THOSE WHO CONSISTENTLY PLEADED GUILTY, AND THOSE WHO NEGOTIATED GUILTY PLEAS--ARE EXAMINED.

Abstract

INTERVIEWS WITH DEFENDANTS WHO, AT A LATE STAGE, HAD CHANGED THEIR PLEAS TO GUILTY REVEALED THAT MOST OF THE DEFENDANTS FELT THEY HAD NEGOTIATED THEIR PLEAS, USUALLY ACCEPTING THE PROMISE OF A PARTICULAR SENTENCE IN RETURN FOR PLEADING GUILTY (A PROMISE THAT GENERALLY WAS KEPT), OR ACTING ON THE ADVICE OF THEIR LAWYERS TO THE EFFECT THAT CONTESTING THE MATTER WOULD BE UNWISE, WHEREAS PLEADING GUILTY WOULD MEAN A CONSIDERABLE AND AUTOMATIC REDUCTION IN SENTENCE. COMPARISONS WERE DRAWN AMONG THE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON THESE LATE PLEA-CHANGERS, ON DEFENDANTS WHO UNSUCCESSFULLY PURSUED NOT-GUILTY PLEAS, AND ON DEFENDANTS WHO CONSISTENTLY PLEADED GUILTY. THE TOTAL SAMPLE CONSISTED OF 450 DEFENDANTS WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED BEFORE THE BIRMINGHAM CROWN COURT. DEFENDANTS WHO UNSUCCESSFULLY CONTESTED THEIR CASES WERE FAR LESS LIKELY THAN EITHER OF THE OTHER TWO GROUPS TO RECEIVE NONCUSTODIAL SENTENCES. LATE PLEA-CHANGERS RECEIVED THE LIGHEST SENTENCES AND WERE LEAST LIKELY TO BE INCARCERATED. PERSONS WHO PLEADED NOT GUILTY WERE SENT TO PRISON FOR LONGER TERMS THAN WERE OTHER INCARCERATED DEFENDANTS. THESE DIFFERENCES, WHICH WERE HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT STATISTICALLY, SUPPORT THE IMPRESSIONS OF THE INTERVIEWED PLEA-CHANGERS AND INDICATE THAT SENTENCING DISCOUNTS ARE AN EXTREMELY POWERFUL INDUCEMENT TO PLEAD GUILTY. IN FACT, THE INTERVIEWS SUGGESTED THAT THE INDUCEMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY STRONG TO LEAD SOME INNOCENT DEFENDANTS TO PLEAD GUILTY. IT IS ARGUED THAT, EXCEPT IN RELATIVELY RARE CASES IN WHICH DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATE GENUINE CONTRITION, THERE IS NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OBSERVED DIFFERENCES IN SENTENCE ACCORDING TO THE PLEA TENDERED. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT A SYSTEM OF JUSTICE CRUDELY BASED ON REWARDS AND DISINCENTIVES CANNOT ACCURATELY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GUILT AND INNOCENCE. IF REDUCTIONS IN SENTENCE FOR GUILTY PLEAS ARE NECESSARY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS, THAT FACT SHOULD NOT BE DISGUISED. TABULAR DATA, CASE EXAMPLES, AND A LIST OF REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (LKM)