NCJ Number
81454
Journal
Canadian Criminology Forum Volume: 4 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1981) Pages: 30-44
Date Published
1981
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This Canadian article examines the ramifications of the pervasive practice of plea bargaining for both the individual defendant and the public.
Abstract
Most of the justifications for plea bargaining are premised on the assumption that the practice is necessary to maintain a high proportion of guilty pleas. Arguments in support of plea bargaining are cited from the Ontario Law Reform Commission; the U.S. Supreme Court case of Santobello v. New York; and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which recognizes that the negotiated plea is a legitimate pretrial procedure. Other justifications in support of plea bargaining are that it saves time and money. A major rationale for plea bargaining is based on the range of benefits that could accrue to the accused, including a reduction in the charge to a lesser or included offense, a withdrawal of other charges or a promise not to proceed on other possible charges, a promise or a recommendation as to the type of sentence and/or the severity of sentence to be expected, and a promise or recommendation as to the place of imprisonment or type of treatment. Cases involving 'broken' plea bargains are discussed, including three Quebec cases: R. v. Kirkpatrick, R. v. Mouffe, and Attorney-General of Canada v. Roy. Reasons why plea bargaining should not be freely allowed are outlined. For example, the more bargaining concessions that are available to the prosecutor, the greater the temptation exists for corruption. If all major decisions in plea bargaining are made in secret negotiations, the interests of the public, the victim, and the accused cannot be protected. Plea bargaining is a threat to the integrity of the criminal justice process and undermines public confidence in the system. A total of 12 notes and about 50 references are given.