NCJ Number
88828
Journal
Hamline Law Review Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1982) Pages: 271-291
Date Published
1982
Length
21 pages
Annotation
Unfettered and unprincipled plea negotiating threatens to undermine the intent of the Minnesota sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing uniformity and proportionality, so prosecutors should draft their own guidelines to support the intent of the sentencing guidelines.
Abstract
The practice of offering mitigating departures in exchange for a guilty plea poses the greatest single threat to the sentencing guidelines. This practice differs in kind as well as degree from charge negotiation. In charge negotiation, the prosecutor's decision to reduce the charge may be based on an honest and realistic appraisal of the available evidence. Since the prosecutor made the original charging decision, it is only appropriate that he/she be allowed to reevaluate it. Offering to mitigate the sentence, however, involves the judge's sentencing function and subverts the State's policy of avoiding disparity. If the rationale for plea negotiating is to avoid the expense of the trial, then the sentencing goals of consistency and proportionality are sacrificed to expediency. Prosecutors should develop their own guidelines for the exercise of their discretion in plea negotations. These guidelines could focus on the distinction between an agreement and a concession, set specific standards concerning when concessions are appropriate, and delineate those concessions which are unacceptable. A total of 106 footnotes are provided.