Displaying 13-13 of 13 results.
October 9 to October 16
Successful
Success
Success
jaimeandresp
- Referee approval report
apz6
- Committed user success report
I already finish started the section A.1 that is the plea bargaining in the united states.
1.1. Plea Bargaining Is the Process
During the last decades, the research on the criminal justice system has studied the use of the plea-bargaining in the United States. Although, historically the use of plea bargaining can be traced since XXX (Friedman, 1979), only until the 1970’s the sociological and legal literature became fully invested in the study of the social dynamics presented in it. According to the data, plea bargaining has become the most common way through which criminal cases are decided (XXX, XXX). (INSERT DATA TALKING SUPPORTING THIS-PAPERS SUPPORTING THIS-LOOK AT HEUMANN DATA)
The excessive use of plea bargaining defies our understanding of how the penal process work. The idea of an adversarial system in which two parties debate and a third impartial party decides if the accused is guilty or innocent does not occur in the presence of plea agreements. Under the frame of plea negotiations, prosecutors and defend lawyers or defendants agree that if the accused plead guilty the punishment will be lesser. In this new scenario, the idea of the judicial process describe by Cardozo (1960) does not apply to the majority of the criminal cases, instead of adjudicating punishment we are negotiating it.
The consequences of the change in the nature of the criminal process a
The fact that our criminal justice is not adjudicating punishment in the traditional adversarial way challenges our conception that by protecting the accused due process right we guarantee a fair process. Under the plea bargaining, due process has little room of application.
third impartial party decided if
The excessive use of the plea bargaining has been presented in the literature as a problematic phenomenon.
Recent studies in this area have reveal that the massive use of plea bargaining has contributed to the reproduction of inequality through the criminal justice system. According to the relevant literature, XXXX [quote Mona Lynch, and other work on plea bargaining use as a tool to social control]. Moreover, according to XXXX, plea bargaining has been a crucial factor in the mass incarceration phenomenon and the disproportional use of prison in minorities. XXXX shows that xxxx [mass incarceration literature-Western, Garland, etc.]
Considering the consequences in inequality of the application of plea bargaining
Different theories around the massive use of plea bargaining have been presented by the relevant literature. The most widely accepted explanation around this phenomenon has been caseload pressure. XXXX [Explain the theory and show the data, quote the authors]. However, this explanation is problematic. As Heumann (XXXX) points out [Look at what Heumann states in the book and look other authors that contradict this hypothesis].
Despite the efforts to understand the excessive use of plea bargaining and the specific outcome it has have in the U.S., we still do not completely understand why prosecutors use massively the plea bargaining. If our original understanding of plea bargaining is true and the motor that drives plea bargaining on the top of the criminal process, then we should observe similar patterns in other contexts in which prosecutors have high caseload pressure.
The question about the relation between plea bargaining and caseload pressure has not been settled. Empirical evidence has been presented to support both conclusions.
1.2. Plea Bargaining and Mass Incarceration
The biggest limitation in the analysis of plea bargaining and its impact on incarceration rates has been the continuous existence of plea bargaining in the U.S. criminal justice history. By not having a counterfactual situation to compare what would happen if U.S. prosecutors do not have caseload pressure