PLEA BARGAINING Bargain Justice?

An historical overview of the plea bargaining process through the past few centuries is presented. The advantages and disadvantages of the use of the legal mechanism are given. A research project conducted in Pima County, Arizona, covering 500 convicted persons who had been involved in plea bargaining is described, and the findings indicate that the majority of individuals included in the study willingly accepted the concept and felt that the practice should not be discontinued. A recommendation for modification of the misuse of the process is that cases should be reviewed for plea bargaining by an independent agency apart from the court and prosecutor. This would insure that the individual was aware that he was abrogating his rights of appeal, thereby eliminating any further investigation of his case.     

NEGOTIATION AND PLEA BARGAINING MODELS: An Organizational Perspective

This article assesses the contributions to our understanding of plea bargaining made by economic and decision-theory models of criminal justice decision-making. The author introduces an organizational interpretation of plea bargaining and critiques two of the more prominent attempts at formal modeling of the criminal process. Empirical evidence, gathered by others, is reanalyzed to compare the relative explanatory power of these formal models in determining patterns of choice among negotiative and adversary dispositions in two urban felony jurisdictions. The article concludes with the assertion that economic and decision-theory models present an insightful but essentially distorted view of criminal justice decision-making. An appreciation for contextual factors, emphasized in organization theory, is necessary for grasping the reality of the criminal process and for shaping meaningful reform.     

AN EXPLICIT TEST OF PLEA BARGAINING IN THE “SHADOW OF THE TRIAL”

Bargaining in the “shadow of the trial,” which hinges on the expectations of trial outcomes, is the primary theory used by noncriminologists to explain variation in the plea discount given to defendants who plead guilty. This study develops a formal mathematical representation of the theory and then presents an empirical test of the theory using an innovative online survey with responses to a hypothetical case from 1,585 prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. The key outcomes are the probability that the defendant will be convicted at trial, the sentence for the defendant if convicted, and the best plea that the respondent would accept or offer. Variation in the outcomes is created through experimental variation in the information presented to the respondents. Structural regression models are estimated to fit the formal theoretical models, and the instrumental variables method is used to correct for measurement error in the estimate for probability of conviction. The data support the basic shadow model, with minor modifications, for only prosecutors and defense attorneys. Controlling for the characteristics of the individual actors and their jurisdictions adds explanatory value to the model, although these control variables did not affect the key coefficients from the shadow model.     

THE HEDGEHOG DILEMMA IN THE COURT-MEDIA RELATIONSHIP IN CHINA

This paper explains why Schopenhauer＇s ＂Hedgehog Dilemma＂ may be the most apposite metaphor for the relationship between the courts and the media. Whatever they get from each other, the media＇s role representing the public and the court＇s role representing justice are both essential to modern democracy. Therefore, their relationship has attracted attention, not just in legal and media professions, but also in public and government debate. In the last two decades, China ＇s highest court has issued judicial interpretations and guidelines to regulate the activities of the media and the court, which has brought the topic to a new level of discussion. As a drafter of these official documents, the author will comment on development in this field and their interaction with values inherent to democracy.     

LESSENING THE STING OF ASFA: THE REHABILITATION‐RELAPSE DILEMMA BROUGHT ABOUT BY DRUG ADDICTION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) as a response to children waiting in foster homes for years without permanent placement. In addressing the problem of permanency, however, Congress set a strict limit on how long a child could be in foster care (15 out of the most recent 22 months) before a state must either commence a proceeding to terminate parental rights or else lose valuable federal funding. Due to health care funding schemes and quality of treatment, this requirement, in particular, negatively impacts parents currently in drug rehabilitation whose parental rights may be permanently terminated before a realistic chance to recover is permitted. Although ASFA requires that states make “reasonable efforts” to keep families united, it does not define “reasonable efforts,” leaving parental rights and family unity subject to a chaotic interpretation of this requirement from state to state. “Reasonable efforts” should be interpreted to take into account current drug addiction and recovery research and drug court programs should be used to facilitate this goal. Research has shown that focusing on adequate treatment saves states money and improves the lives of children and their families, reducing the need for reliance on termination of parental rights.     

COURT CASELOADS,PLEA BARGAINS,AND CRIMINAL SANCTIONS: THE EFFECTS OF SECTION 17 P.C. IN CALIFORNIA*

In an effort to relieve its overburdened superior courts, California introduced a statutory amendment which allowed lesser felonies to be dealt with in lower-level courts. Using an interrupted time-series methodology, this study examines the impact of this change in law on caseloads, plea bargaining, conviction rates, and sentencing in the superior courts. After the statutory intervention there was a reduction in superior court caseloads, but the overall rate of plea bargaining remained relatively constant. However, there were substantial changes in types of plea bargains with a decline in fast pleas and a corresponding rise in slow pleas. It was also found that severity of sanctions was related to the changing caseload patterns. Policy and theoretical implications of these and other findings are discussed.