1979•Law & Society ReviewRequires access

In Defense of “Bargain Justice”

Thomas W. Church

Open publisher page 47 citations

Abstract

The strongest critics of plea bargaining argue that the practice should be abolished because it coerces defendants to give up their right to trial and because it results in irrational sentences for criminal defendants. Neither charge is applicable to a system of plea negotiations that meets four basic criteria: (1) the defendant always has the alternative of a jury trial at which both verdict and sentence are determined solely on the merits; (2) the defendant is represented throughout negotiations by competent counsel; (3) both defense and prosecution have equal access to relevant evidence; and (4) both possess sufficient resources to take a case to trial. The most fruitful direction of reform is to seek to achieve these conditions rather than attempt to eliminate plea bargaining.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The strongest critics of plea bargaining argue that the practice should be abolished because it coerces defendants to give up their right to trial and because it results in irrational sentences for criminal defendants. Neither charge is applicable to a system of plea negotiations that meets four basic criteria: (1) the defendant always has the alternative of a jury trial at which both verdict and sentence are determined solely on the merits; (2) the defendant is represented throughout negotiations by competent counsel; (3) both defense and prosecution have equal access to relevant evidence; and (4) both possess sufficient resources to take a case to trial. The most fruitful direction of reform is to seek to achieve these conditions rather than attempt to eliminate plea bargaining.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 47 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The strongest critics of plea bargaining argue that the practice should be abolished because it coerces defendants to give up their right to trial and because it results in irrational sentences for criminal defendants. Neither charge is applicable to a system of plea negotiations that meets four basic criteria: (1) the defendant always has the alternative of a jury trial at which both verdict and sentence are determined solely on the merits; (2) the defendant is represented throughout negotiations by competent counsel; (3) both defense and prosecution have equal access to relevant evidence; and (4) both possess sufficient resources to take a case to trial. The most fruitful direction of reform is to seek to achieve these conditions rather than attempt to eliminate plea bargaining.

Key concepts: Plea, Irrational number, Verdict, Jury, Negotiation, Law, Sentence, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
In Defense of “Bargain Justice” — Research Paper | ScholarLens