What Is the Ethical Dilemma With Plea Bargaining?

Plea bargains are seen as a negotiation of the law.

Plea bargaining occurs when two sides in a case agree to settle the matter before having a judge or jury decide. Usually, the defendant pleads guilty to a crime that carries a lesser sentence than the actual accused crime. However, this tactic may cause ethical dilemmas, such as inequality in the justice system.

Identification

Some critics of plea bargains see them as creating an injustice in the legal system. Parties that work on a bargain agreement usually get a lesser sentence than a person who attempts to refute charges through a proper trial.

Effects

Plea bargains that are worked out with a conference between the judge and the opposing sides may cause distrust between the public and the legal system.

Benefits

Plea bargains are not ideal because they apply differing standards to different people. On the other hand, they cut out many court costs and help the legal system move cases along more quickly.

Considerations

Whether an ethical dilemma exists with plea bargaining depends on how a person views the ultimate goal of the court system. Those who think the judicial system should deter crime and work efficiently, see plea bargains as a useful tool. However, those who prize equality see them as ethically dubious.

Prevention/Solution

Ethicist Joycelyn M. Pollock believes that guidelines for a plea bargain, such as having ranges of jail time/fines for certain offenses would cut down on the perceived inequality of plea bargain sentences.

References

• Queensland University of Technology: When Is Plea Bargaining Justified?
• Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice; 2004