An overview on the plea bargaining trends in the United States criminal system reveals that it is an agreement between the defense councils of a defendant and the prosecutors. According to this agreement the defendant may plead guilty or take the stand of no contest to the criminal charges levied against him or her. In return for such a plea bargain, the prosecutor has the option of dropping some of the charges, reducing the originally demanded sentence, or even ask the presiding judge to enter into a specified sentence in agreement with the defendant.

Effects of Plea Bargaining on The Litigant

There are certain factors, which directly and perhaps provide relief to the litigant through the act of plea-bargaining. These include for example the over-crowded situations of the criminal courts, the defendant's incentives for entering into a plea bargain, as well as the agreement of both the prosecution and the presiding judge all of which have a certain degree of influence on the very act of plea bargaining.

Due to the over-crowding of cases in the criminal courts, both the prosecutors and judges seek to decide a number of cases in the earliest possible time, and one way of accomplishing this is through the plea-bargaining. Second, one may also note the defendant with the complete knowledge of the forthcoming sentence or punishment enters into a plea bargain, for which he or she is given due benefit of chance for entering into such an agreement. Yet another influential factor for entering into plea bargaining is the nation's overburdened prison systems, and the inability of the judges to cope with the increasing number of criminal cases, both of which provide more than convincing grounds to adopt the plea bargaining strategy. (Stuntz, 1991)

In addition, the effects of plea bargaining on the litigant are also pursued to gain a reduced sentence by pleading guilty to a lesser charge. In return the litigant is served with a reduced sentence through an agreement between the prosecutors and the presiding judge of the respective court.

Juvenile offenders, who agree to plead guilty for obtaining a reduced sentence, or one, which is lenient for the youngster, also pursue plea-bargaining. Though the decision to do so rests entirely with the presiding judge of the respective court, it is essential that the child's attorney as well as the prosecutor both agree to the plea-bargaining, before the same can be presented to the honorable judge.

There are conditions where a juvenile offender accepts or admits to the charges levied against him or her, in which the respective court adopts a lenient perspective and appropriately disposes of the respective case. On the other hand, if the child refuses to accept the charges, and denies them, the court proceeds the case, and prosecution is advised to pursue the trial under normal circumstances.

The legal experts, judges, as well as the prosecutors are of the view that plea-bargaining is an act that increases rather than decrease the number of charges and sentencing against litigants. In direct contrast, various studies including one carried out by the Judicial Council of Alaska in 1991 duly confirmed that a ban on plea-bargaining has resulted in increasing attention for both the screening and charging decisions for the acceptance of the cases. Furthermore, the previously held legal stand of "a probable cause" has now been changed to "beyond a reasonable doubt", hence the legal efficacy of the plea-bargaining practice. In context to the effects on the litigants, one may also observe that a ban on plea-bargaining has in fact increased the percentage of convicted offenders sentenced, as well as bringing a significant raise in the mean active sentence for the offenders. (Stuntz, 1991)

References

Unknown author (1991), Alaska's Plea-Bargaining Ban: Re-evaluated, and available at
http://www.ajc.state.ak.us/Reports/pleaframe.htm

Stuntz, W. J., (1991), Harvard Law Review, 2548 "Plea Bargaining And Criminal Law’s Disappearing Shadow".