1.

Public criticism of plea bargaining often proceeds from the premise that it is corrupt
because it permits a defendant to plead to a lesser offense than his actions truly warrant.
In contrast, defense lawyers tend to criticize plea bargaining from the following premises:
public defenders are too overworked and underfunded to take most cases to trial,
prosecutors have all the bargaining advantages, and defendants often have little real
understanding of the life-long disadvantages they are accepting. Assess the validity of
these criticisms. If plea bargaining is a necessary evil, just how evil is it?
The biggest criticism of plea bargaining is that defendant's do not get a true
advocate within the criminal justice system. Public Defenders are so overworked that
they can not afford, in time or resources, to simply take every case to trial. In an ideal
system, every defendant would be given the opportunity to have their plight advocated on
to the fullest extent available. While this may be a valid criticism, we must also view
plea bargaining from the eyes of a criminal who would rather plea than go to trial. In a
case such as this, plea bargaining is a necessary evil because a defendant may choose to
admit their crime and get a lesser sentence. A defendant that is well informed by his
counsel will know the chances that he has to succeed in trial and may choose to plead to a
lesser crime and/or sentence voluntarily.
As far as prosecutors having bargaining advantages, this may also be a valid
criticism. Defendants are often persuaded to accept plea bargains they may not like
because the only other option is to go to trial and many times a defendant would not want
to do this. When I was interning at the District Attorney's Office in Chemung County,
NY, there were many times when a public defender or a public advocate came into the
office and said, "I just don't have the time to take this case to trial, what kind of deal can
we get." This puts the prosecutor in a great bargaining position and can put any kind of
deal they want on the table. The flip side to this is, though, that if a defendant wants to
bring his case to trial, he usually can. If he is adamant on having his case tried by a jury,
many times this is what happens. Even if a prosecutor has a bargaining advantage, they
are typically fair in their deals because they are working with PD's on a daily basis and
must maintain a good working relationship. ADA's aren't typically in the business to
"screw" the criminal defendants and many times the deals are fair. While the prosecution
may have an advantage, it is slight and, while valid, is not a bright line criticism of plea
bargaining.
While plea bargaining may be an evil, even if this is in debate, it is by all accounts
a 'necessary' evil. If it weren't for plea bargaining, the over-worked courts and saturated
public defenders would not have any chance to pull all their resources together for every
criminal defendant. While it is not ideal, it is the system in which we live. Plea
bargaining is a process that is of utmost important to the criminal justice system and
without it the system as we know, and has worked, would crumble. While its 'evil-ness'
may be a debate, its necessity is not.