Prosecutors and the Disposition of Criminal Cases: An Analysis of Plea Bargaining Rates

Increasing crime rates generate considerable public concern over the performance of the criminal justice system. Many citizens would be shocked to learn that the system operates on the basis of mutual cooperation and consultation, rather than the media image of the strident prosecutor battling a committed defense attorney. The actual operation of the American system of criminal justice is vastly different from the ideal adversary system. The reality is bureaucratic bargaining.1 Approximately ninety percent of all criminal cases are resolved through the process of pre-trial negotiation or plea bargaining.2 Plea bargaining results from an agreement between the prosecutor, defense attorney, and ocrasionally the defendant. The prosecutor offers the defendant a quid pro quo (charge reduction or sentence recommendation) for pleading guilty. Plea bargaining is a low visability process, one which occurs in a private and informal setting. Decisions are made over lunch or in the hallway of the criminal court building. Moreover, the participants wield such discretion that in most cases they serve as the final arbiters in the sentencing decision. The practice of plea bargaining has created considerable controversy. Various study groups such as the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice and the American Bar Association have endorsed the practice, although recommending certain reforms.3 However, other groups, specifically the Nixon Administration's National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, have argued for the abolition of plea bargaining.4 Given the prevalence of the practice, as well as the widespread disagreement over its use, plea bargaining merits further study and research. This study examines the effect of a prosecutor's values and social background on his rate of plea bargaining. The findings presented here are based on a mail survey of prosecuting attorneys and their assistants in the state of Illinois.6 The survey instrument contained both open-ended and closed questions focusing primarily on the prosecutor's plea bargaining practices and his view of these procedures. Respondents were also asked to supply biographical data.