THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS INDISCRIMINATELY REFERRED TO AS 'PLEA BARGAINING' OR 'PLEA NEGOTIATION.' ALTHOUGH NEWMAN'S (1966) DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT PLEA NEGOTIATIONS HELPS TO CLARIFY THE CONFUSION SOMEWHAT, AN EXAMINATION OF THESE TWO TYPES OF SITUATIONS REVEALS THAT THEY HAVE COMMON ELEMENTS. THEY CAN VARY ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE AGREEMENT IS TREATED AS A LEGAL CONTRACT, HOW MUCH HAGGLING IS PERMITTED, AND WHO CONDUCTS THE NEGOTIATIONS. HOWEVER, EVEN THIS BROAD DEFINITION FAILS TO CONSIDER THE FUNDAMENTAL DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF PLEA BARGAINING: THE STATE'S IMPROPER USE OF ITS COERCIVE POWER TO OBTAIN THE GROUNDS FOR PUNISHING SOMEONE OR TO ACHIEVE SOME PUBLIC GOOD BY THREATENING TO IMPOSE PENALTIES. THEREFORE, POLICY ISSUES IN THIS AREA SHOULD BE PHRASED IN TERMS OF THE VARIETY OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN TRYING TO ACHIEVE THESE TWO GOALS OF CONVICTING CRIMINALS AND PROTECTING THE PUBLIC GOOD. FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)
Downloads
Similar Publications
- Early Representation by Defense Counsel Field Test Evaluation The Shelby County Experience - A Case Study
- The Impact of Counsel at First Appearance on Pretrial Release in Felony Arraignments: The Case of Rural Jurisdictions
- Racial Variation in Mental Health Court Experiences and the Associations of These Experiences With Recidivism