Rampant Plea Bargaining Is a Raw Deal for Defendants
A new report details how plea bargaining can hurt defendants and warps the justice system.

A new report from the American Bar Association (ABA) presents more evidence that the ubiquitous use of plea bargains distorts the justice system and puts defendants at a disadvantage. Roughly 98.3 percent of federal criminal convictions result from guilty pleas, as do roughly 95 percent of state convictions. "Some jurisdictions have not had a criminal trial in many years," the report notes. Nor is a guilty plea an absolute assurance of guilt: 18 percent percent of documented exonerations had previously pleaded guilty, as did nearly 11 percent of defendants exonerated by DNA evidence since 1989.
To make defendants plead guilty rather than go to trial, prosecutors threaten harsher sentences, bail impositions, indictments of the defendant's family members, and more. "Some prosecutors will threaten to amend charging documents by adding charges to induce the defendant to plead guilty," the report states. Further, some prosecutors strategically threaten to bring charges with mandatory minimum sentencing requirements. The ABA task force members differ on the prudence of abolishing mandatory minimums outright, but "all members agree that where mandatory minimums remain in statutory form, they should not be used to induce pleas of guilt through the plea bargaining process."
The "trial penalty" defendants incur when they refuse to plead guilty is reflected in the sentencing data reported by the ABA. In federal felony cases, average sentences handed down at trial are seven years longer than convictions resulting from a plea bargain. "Although a modest reduction in sentence is justified in some cases resolved through guilty pleas because a defendant accepts responsibility, sentences should not be punitively inflated simply because a defendant exercised a fundamental right," the report argues.
Plea bargaining in many cases allows prosecutors to circumvent the defendant's right to an attorney—particularly in misdemeanor cases and in rural areas. And even with counsel, a hastily accepted plea deal forecloses the opportunity to expose potential governmental abuse. "Challenges to police misconduct are typically resolved through pretrial litigation, but the death of the trial has also increasingly meant the death of pretrial litigation, including those hearings that would bring to light police misconduct," the report states. "Trial and pretrial litigation are essential for holding police and other state actors accountable, and plea bargaining has eroded these systems of accountability." Moreover, many "defendants are often denied discovery, including exculpatory evidence, before they make the decision to plead guilty."
Another impediment to reform is the secretive and unrecorded nature of many plea-bargaining procedures. "To ensure that trial judges and reviewing courts have a full and accurate record of the plea negotiations, all plea offers, whether accepted or not, should be in writing and filed with the court prior to sentencing or dismissal of the case," the report says, adding later that, "to avoid…coercion, once an initial charging decision has been made after the careful process outlined above, charges should be amended only based on material changes in the available proof or in the interests of justice."
The right to a jury trial is the only right protected in the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine. John Adams held that "representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty." The celebrated 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone declared the right "the glory of the English law."
Reinvigorating the right to trial by jury is a difficult task, the report concedes, due to widely varying procedures across and within jurisdictions. Even "similarly situated defendants in the same county, arrested on the same day, may have dissimilar experiences when taking a plea for no other reason than the identity of the judge on the bench that day," the report relates.
Plea bargains have a single great advantage: They increase the efficiency of the justice system. "Efficiency has a role to play in criminal law policymaking, but it should not be the primary goal of that policy," the report counters. "Rather, the goal should be a criminal justice system where defendants are guaranteed due process, victims receive justice, and the rule of law can flourish."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Always be thinking about how, if we reduce the use of plea bargaining, it can be manipulated by ambitious prosecutors in ways that make the system worse.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link--------------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
This is an excellent point
"it can be manipulated by ambitious prosecutors in ways that make the system worse."
As if ambitious prosecutors aren't already manipulating the plea bargaining system in ways that make the system worse.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
They get you comin' and goin'.
So no plea bargains or stacking charges.
A prosecutor gets to file once, for the charge the (alleged) crook did, and make the case.
If he can't, it's over.
No bullying million charge threats to get a guilty plea.
No bullying million charge threats to get a guilty plea.
Then how are we supposed to get the next Martha Stewart?
AI
❤️
Je suis payé plus de 160$ USD à 700 $ USD de l’heure pour travailler en ligne. J’ai entendu parler de ce travail il y a 3 mois et après avoir rejoint celui-ci, j’ai gagné facilement 31 000 $ USD sans avoir de compétences de travail en ligne. Essayez-le simplement sur le site d’accompagnement…
COPIER ET OUVRIR CE SITE…► WORK AT HOME
Yes!
A defendant should always have the option to go to trial on the original charge or any threatened charge without being subject to any "lesser and included" or lower charge. Exceptions should require court approval and only for very narrow reasons (for example the key witness for the prosecution dying - not merely retracting - or additional evidence coming forth that fully justifies reducing the charge).
This would help insure that prosecutors really believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime and they are confident they can prove it to a jury and would help eliminate the bullying.
In support of such a change, the system should require audio and video recording of all conversations between prosecutors and the accused (and/or their lawyer) and those recordings should be maintained virtually forever and available to the defendant on demand.
When I was much younger (many decades ago!) I knew someone had never in their life driven in snow or ice and was driving into the mountains to ski and hit a patch of black ice, went off the side of the road killing a passenger (they were under the posted speed limit and there were no chain requirements etc). The prosecutor in the Podunk county threatened a high manslaughter charge which I don't think they would have had a chance of getting a conviction on (and probably wouldn't have even tried to go to trial on) and then "offered" a plea deal on something like "reckless driving with bodily harm". The accused took the deal not because they thought they were guilty of the offense but because the slight possibility of a manslaughter conviction was so scary. To this day that has made me very skeptical of plea bargains.
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I'm working online! My work didn't exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn't be happier.
Here’s what I do.......................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
A rule of law in a nation that has National Gov-Gangster-Guns running around Stealing (as promised by Biden), Harassing (Trump witch-hunt), Censoring (Twitter & Election fraud claims) and Looting the working public for [WE] mobster gangs????
It would be nice if this Nazi-Addled nation could actually accept a Supreme Law of principles (the people's law over their government) and enforce it instead of being treasonous "remake" the USA democratic lobbyists.
Huh?
Some jurisdictions have not had a criminal trial in many years," the report notes.
I was slightly skeptical of this claim, at first, but then I thought, "Well there may be some rural districts that have low crime rates and everything is resolved via plea." So I decided to find what the origin of this claim was.
I went to the link, which had the same quote, and a citation. That citation led to a different article. So I went and read that article. I didn't find it in that article, but it showed up in a footnote of THAT article, with a citation to a fourth story. That fourth story was just a few paragraphs about one single judge in the Southern District of New York who had a single criminal trial in four years. And THAT story was citing a report from the New York Times (which is paywalled). But at least I got the actual name of the judge.
So the Southern District of New York has several courthouses and over 40 judges. So claiming that some districts have not had a trial in many years because one single judge in this district had only a single trial in a 4 year span is an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. But it showed up because various different studies are playing the telephone game with repetitions of the same claim and it grows over time. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if people were more thorough about investigating claims they make.
I may have more feelings about the actual issue of plea bargaining, but I want to finish reading the linked report-it's over 30 pages. I just felt I needed to run down the seemingly bizarre claim I saw in the very first paragraph of this story.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
More information………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
thats some good investigative journalism
too bad it doesnt exist amongst the journalist class
Well done! Really does show the state of journalism in this country.
There's a few claims within the report that deserve to be challenged. See if you can figure out what's wrong with this statement of facts:
Black people are 13.6% of the American population but 53% of the 3,200 exonerations listed in the National Registry of Exonerations as of August, 2022.
Noticing an issue with this claim? I'll let you stew on it a bit while I review more of this report.
Obviously, the above claim is citing two populations with different relationships. The population of exonerations is a subset of people who have been convicted. So what percentage of convictions do Black People comprise? They might get an inordinate number of exonerations if they comprise a larger percentage of convicted people simply because they have more opportunities. You’ve got to compare them to a population that is similar. Doing this is like saying that Chinese people make up 24% of the world population, but account for only 2% of American billionaires. Those population groups don’t line up.
Anyway, reading this report, they offer this proposal:
I don’t know what value “accepting” guilt has for the purposes of justice following a trial. Maybe there’s something there if a defendant who has been found guilty can offer an allocution, laying out an admission of the facts in the hopes it’s helpful for the victims, but it seems less valuable than admitting guilt (of course, assuming there is guilt) and sparing a victim from having to testify.
I don’t know if this recommendation has any merit. There certainly are a few arguments in this report I find valuable, of course. The fact is that plea bargaining also cuts short pre-trial motions where police abuses, or other breaches of rights, can be litigated. So trials are good for the transparency and for holding police accountable, where plea bargaining allows prosecutors to leverage facts obtained through flawed investigations. Certainly, more criminal trials would be preferable for as much as it’s feasible.
So I got pulled away from reading and didn't finish that report-because it's tedious, and endnotes are the devil when there's no hyperlink to them and you have to scroll all the way down, figure out where the endnotes start, and then hunt for the number.
My overall thoughts are mixed. For one, the American Bar Association uses the word "stakeholders" too often for my liking. And they have the problem of looking at disparate impacts and claiming THAT'S the real problem, instead of analyzing whether the issue itself is legitimate. To be fair, they did acknowledge that striving for equal treatment runs the risk of creating a scenario in which leniency is granted less often. But they didn't consider this a sufficient reason to re-analyze their goals, so fuck them a little bit.
But there's plenty of good points. Trials are becoming more rare, and plea bargaining more common, but trials are useful for public faith in the system. Which makes me question why Federal Courts are always closed to live cameras. There should be a camera in every district, state, and federal courtroom with a live feed constantly running every single day when the proceedings are open to the public. The only exceptions should be protecting the rights of minors, or to avoid doxxing a potential juror before the trial starts. We have the technology, and cameras and broadband have become dirt cheap.
Oh wow! Wait until this author learns of the piled on charges for the January 6th defendants and how many had no choice but to plead guilty to lessor charges, else they be facing 20 years in prison. Maybe that would be a good subject article for a researcher who is interested in the subject of plea deal coercion.
Of course, their peers would then cancel them, no law review publication would accept their articles, and they would be fired from their job. But, if someone is really serious about the issue, certainly they would stand on principles, wouldn't they?
Being held in solitary confinement without bail for 2 years is not coercive.....
So I don't know the details of all these people held in solitary that keeps getting referenced in these comments sections...but typically to be in solitary the defendant would either be: 1) mentally ill and possible suicidal or prone to self-harm 2) disruptive or combative such that they can't place them in general population 3) the prisoner requested to be separated from other inmates.
Solitary confinement is somewhat of a burden on the jail because it requires more work and monitoring than other inmate areas. More rounds more check ups etc... (whether that is followed at every institution may be a separate issue.) So when I hear about all these Jan 6 defendants being held in solitary for 2yrs... i have to question why they are there and if they didn't cause this sort of confinement themselves due to their behavior or mental condition. Does anybody know?
https://justthenews.com/government/local/dc-jail-treatment-capitol-riot-defendants-draws-bipartisan-outrage
The jail in DC had everyone in 23-hour confinement because of the medical crisis, without letting them spend any time outdoors. Eventually they eased it up to 22 hours, but the January 6 defendants were still on "restricted housing," which means maximum security. Considering many of those people are accused of simple trespassing, which should be punishable with a fine, months spent in maximum security under pandemic stay-in-place orders is an unjust punishment.
I don't know if they're still using those pandemic guidelines or if it's been eased up, but it was certainly true for several months, at a minimum, they were all locked up and denied contact.
Just off the top of my head:
Make plea bargains void if:
-Pleas are concluded before *full* discovery and defendant’s chance to look over the evidence
-There are threats to charge other people in order to get the person to plead
Also
-Sentence bargains only (reduce sentence for the crime as originally charged), not charge bargains (drop 9 charges if you plead to the 10th)
-If it goes to trial, defendant can raise the issue of plea offers: he can show the jury which plea offers (formal and informal) he refused (prosecution can rebut by showing pleas defendant offered)
-putting prosecution to its proof isn’t the same as lack of remorse, though a defendant using fake evidence (if jury finds its fake) could get an enhanced sentence.
So, there is this guy who got arrested for trespassing. They kept him in jail for many months without charges. They kept him in solitary confinement, actually. For nearly two years, as it turned out, before they sorted out that he would be charged with "obstructing a government function" and some other stuff good for 20 years.
So he pleads guilty to a judge who agreed that he was far too dangerous to allow out on bail and who says he was the face of a deadly insurrection and he is lucky to get only 4 years. Doesn't even get credit for time served.
Then some video comes out that the prosecution withheld. It shows him walking about with police, not really looking very dangerous.
But they didn't show you this
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1634039108958932995?s=20
He took to a bullhitn telling everyone to go home, reading the President's tweet to that effect out loud for the crowd and arguing with people who want to continue.
This video is also withheld from the defense.
So.....
Where does this fit in the "coerced plea deals" pantheon?
Does this rise to a level that Reason would consider to be worthy of mention?
Pretty sure Sullum will have an explanation on Monday.
Hey,
Plea bargaining is a legal process in which a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence. While plea bargaining can help the justice system to function more efficiently and resolve cases more quickly, it can also have negative consequences for defendants and the justice system as a whole. Here are some ways in which plea bargaining can hurt defendants and warp the justice system:
Coercion and pressure: Defendants may feel coerced or pressured into accepting a plea deal, even if they are innocent or the evidence against them is weak. Prosecutors may use the threat of a harsher sentence if the defendant does not accept the plea deal, which can lead to defendants feeling like they have no choice but to accept the plea bargain.
Innocent defendants pleading guilty: Defendants who are actually innocent may plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence if they go to trial. This can result in innocent people being punished for crimes they did not commit, and it can also undermine the integrity of the justice system.
Racial and economic disparities: Plea bargaining can disproportionately affect people of color and those with low incomes. These individuals may be more likely to accept plea deals due to limited access to legal representation, leading to unequal treatment in the justice system.
Lack of transparency: Plea bargaining often takes place behind closed doors, with little public oversight or transparency. This can lead to concerns about fairness and accountability in the justice system.
Pressure to plead guilty rather than seek justice: The prevalence of plea bargaining can create a culture in which defendants are encouraged to plead guilty rather than seek justice through a trial. This can lead to a justice system that is more focused on closing cases quickly than on ensuring that justice is served.
Overall, plea bargaining can have negative consequences for defendants and the justice system if not implemented carefully and fairly. While it can help to reduce caseloads and expedite the legal process, it is important to ensure that defendants are not coerced or pressured into accepting plea deals and that the process is transparent and fair for all involved.
Interesting how conservatives never mind or care about charge stacking when it's against people they don't like, but they can't stop whining and crying about how unfair unfair unfair unfair unfair the J6 defendants are being treated. No worries though. Soon as J6 is forgotten they'll be all about larf and hors d'oeuvre again.
...and again.
It's not just prosecutors that are rigging the system. Prosecutors, public defenders, cops and judges all feed from the same trough. Many years ago I was at traffic court and the prosecutors were busily cutting deals with anybody challenging the charges. An elderly black man refused the deal and demanded a jury trial. When the judge found out he began screaming and berating the old guy. The old man gave up and took the deal. Our "justice" system exists only to perpetuate itself. For the middle class and above it's a straightforward extortion racket. Pay the fine and get a get out of jail free card. Everybody else is screwed.
Last time I went to traffic court the judge started off by saying “You’re all guilty, and I don’t accept any defenses. ‘I was just driving’ isn’t a defense. And state law says that the radar is right, even if you can prove it was wrong. Let’s get along with wasting my time.”
Then he proceeded to, one by one, pronounce everyone guilty.
It’s all about the revenue. That’s it. Money, money, money.
After watching JFK and Bobby get whacked with mad bombers enslaving the youth to burn and shoot villagers on the other side of the planet, the nation was clearly in the hands of madmen. So the madmen grab teenagers who know for a fact that their plant leaves are not narcotic, addictive or even harmful, then expect them to confess to nonexistent "crimes" or be tortured for years by the mad and superstitious government. That same kleptocracy is still there demanding recantation. The means of torture are now subtler.
So Bobby and Jack were gonna legalize MJ, buttsex and abortion on demand and usher in the libertarian utopia? I'll have to check the Libertarian Party platform from 1964. I was pretty young but I seem to remember J and R FK were pretty much full on authoritarians. Maybe I'm wrong. But at least we don't have to worry about the Comstock Act. The girl bulliers of course remain.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acct. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
More information………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Not given the attention it deserves in this article is the fact that prosecution “efficiency” is only necessary because of the thousands upon thousands of Federal, state and local “crimes and misdemeanors” inflicted on a sheep-like public with the pretense that all those laws are intended to protect the public safety. In fact, according to the “three laws a day” principle, almost none of those violations intentionally or unintentionally threatened the public safety in any way. The public attitude that “there oughta be a law” coupled with the natural propensity for power-seeking people to gravitate towards official government positions instead of doing something productive for a living ensures that there will be no shortage of excuses for them to wield their authority and indulge their cravings. Society would get along just fine and even make progress over time with only a few crimes on the books intended to protect each person’s equal rights under the principles of “mind your own business” and “self-defense and proper defense of others.”
Looking at things in the light of QI, it’s worth noting that the police can escape civil suits on the grounds of ignorance of a constitution that is widely available and generally comprehensible, while the rest of us cannot escape on the grounds of ignorance of the law despite the vast amount of law out there that we are presumed to know, and the lack of clarity of much of that law.
(FWIW in many of these QI cases, I am pretty sure that if you asked the average member of the public whether the claimed conduct was unconstitutional, they’d say, hell yeah! The current process is, a judge decides about the constitutional violation. A freer approach would be for the judge to decide whether the act violated the constitution, and then a jury would decide whether a reasonable citizen should have known that.)
FWIW I have often thought that ignorance of the law should be a legitimate defence in all cases where a person could not be expected to know the law. There are, for example, many laws and regulations dealing with importing or exporting sundry items, and a tourist might find themselves in legal trouble for bringing something into the US that they should not have done. It is different if they’re in the import/export biz, where they can be expected to know the relevant laws and regulations. I do not see too many citizens regularly trawling through the Federal Register to check what new things are prohibited.
I haven't seen this many "I make X$$$/ Hour" troll comments anywhere else - they proliferate on many sites but this place takes the cake.
Almost 50 years ago James Mills wrote a thrilling novel, "One Just Man." In the novel a single public defender encouraged his clients not to take plead bargains but insist on their right to trial. As the idea grows to to other lawyers and clients, the resulting chaos almost ends American civilization. It show what happens when efficiency becomes more important than justice.
If your trial date is months in the future, and you family is without your income, and you can not afford bail and you are facing several months wait 'till a trial...
It seems that the Judicial system has no concern for speedy trial, only for a speedy outcome.
The vast power of prosecutors is routinely abusive, without decency, without responsibility, unjust. Why? The greater the political power, the greater the social chaos, contrary to the universal superstition that the initiation of violence is "order", as in "law & order". The opposite is obvious to the nonbeliever, those who value personal sovereignty, i.e., rights. Their arguments are ignored, shut out of the political debate, but not defeated. We, the voluntarists, resist authoritarianism, collectivism, and try to live & let live in an unfree world.