Honorable judges and opponents, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to oppose the motion, which advocates judges to have more say in dealing with plea bargains in England and Wales. At the core of our discourse is the topic of plea bargaining, a scheme where defendants collaborate with prosecutors to have a lesser sentence or fewer charges labeled against them. Even though justice and presumption of innocence can become a significant problem, there are other possible solutions than the judiciary’s supervision.
Arguments
The situation in the law and legal system where we can feel guilty plea bargaining is dangerous regarding justice and innocence presumption. The thought of going through a trial and facing the possibility of up to a capital punishment sentence could induce the defendants to trade their right for a fair trial to seek a plea bargain. The principle of coercive dynamic violation, where a person is innocent until proven guilty, is the only point of an intense process. The following step shows that the accused would like to plead not guilty regardless of the situation; they still have to think of their defense, and if they decide to take the guilty plea, they will receive less punishment.
The plea-bargaining system has core problems besides tainting the trial process; it implores the innocent to be blameless, making the justice system last. It could get more complicated if they could win, but that does not ensure the defendant will feel better than by plea agreement to avoid the uncertainty and stress. The prosecution is considered a tool that provides this profit-induced system, which works with the need for the justification of convictions and uncovering truth simultaneously. Unfortunately, corrupt prosecutors are not an anomaly. One can see that many individuals plead guilty to crimes that they have not committed because of the methods by which plea-bargaining is done.
Probation helps negotiate to gain and solve the fundamental problem. However, the technique is risky, and the chances are nonexistent. The authority that decides facts may help delay and overwhelm matters in courts. Moreover, the requirement of participation of judges in plea conferences might be accused of involving issues like conflict of interest and biased opinions, which determine the PR process’s legitimacy. Law courts must avoid setting more conditions for assessing every case since this carries the danger of delaying legal proceedings, thus deteriorating the justice system’s fairness and speed.
It is important to note that the issues regarding the justice system can be resolved without court supervision, where opposing plea-bargaining will help cut down on the grappling, leading to delays and justice being stuck. Justice is only possible when protection mechanisms are organized, and indiscrimination is minimized. Furthermore, factors underlying the agility within our legal system enable various approaches for situations, thereby being a good instrument of justice without prejudice to the changing realities.
Significant problems are discussed when considering the presumption of innocence by plea bargaining, unfair conviction, and safety issues that emerge when judges act as managers—identifying the main reasons for the existing advantages, taking the liberty to reject the motion that goes on to sue for oversight of the judiciary. Unlike this, we grab a more balanced strategy emphasizing the existing system’s modifications. Considering the weaknesses of plea-bargaining concerning critical consideration, fairness, openness, defendants’ rights, and flexibility are essential to ensure justice prevails.
Conclusion
There are severe implications with plea bargaining as it may cause unfair pleas for guilty people and can negatively affect the legal system when a judge is in place. Realizing the good side of the system, such as decreasing the high number of judges assigned, we must oppose the resolution seeking judicial monitoring. Instead of backing a one-sided roadmap that gives premium to changes in the existing framework, we prefer a more holistic approach that emphasizes the changes but still accommodates the existing structure. We may eradicate the drawbacks of plea-bargaining without affecting the outcome of fairness by improving transparency, protecting defendants’ rights, and keeping the malleability.
References
Gormley, Jay. “The inefficiency of plea bargaining.” Journal of Law and Society 49, no. 2 (2022): 277-293.
Singh, Animesh Pratap. “Morality of Plea Bargaining in Criminal Proceedings and the Ethical Limits of Lawyers.” Dharmashastra Nat’l L. Univ. L. Rev. 1 (2022): 88.
write