The Morality of Plea Bargains

In my Comparative Criminal Justice class, we’ve been talking for the past few weeks about plea bargains and philosophies of sentencing. Plea bargaining is viewed by most as a “necessary evil” – though it is not ideal for many reasons, our court system is so overwhelmed with cases that the only way to address them all is to allow (and encourage) plea bargains. Trials take a tremendous amount of time, money, and other resources. Increasing resources (equipping the justice system with more judges, prosecutors, etc.) would be insufficient, because any increase the government could actually afford would still make only a tiny fraction of a difference in increasing the number of trials that can be heard. Currently, about 95% of criminal cases result in plea bargains and only about 5% go to trial – so even a huge increase in resources is not going to enable the system to accommodate the remaining cases.


One argument against plea bargains, though, is that prosecutors and sometimes the judge can put pressure on the defendant to plead guilty even when he is innocent. Wrongful convictions do happen – no one knows, of course, how many there are – but research on exonerated convicts and other scenarios indicate that more innocent defendants than guilty defendants reject plea bargains and go to trial. The reason for this is generally thought to be moral in nature. Innocent defendants are unwilling to plead guilty and they optimistically believe the truth will prevail, even when they face incredible odds and know that a conviction could lead to a much harsher sentence.

So now nearly all the states in the USA (but not Israel) allow what is called an “Alford plea” – that is, the defendant can accept the prosecutor’s recommendation of a lighter sentence while still maintaining his or her innocence. When someone is innocent but can’t prove it – in other words, there is sufficient evidence which would most likely convict him or her if the case went to trial - this seems to me to be a good “solution” that sort of circumvents the moral dilemma associated with taking the “rational” choice (less prison time). Maybe people see this as a compromise. It’s certainly not ideal – in the ideal world, only guilty defendants would ever be convicted. But if I am convicted of a crime I didn’t commit, the prosecution has a strong case against me, and there is a very high likelihood of conviction if I go to trial – having the Alford plea option suddenly sounds pretty reasonable. Then again, I could just trust God to bring the truth to light. But I support Alford pleas as an option for defendants and find it interesting that many countries do not have this concept.

Random photo of the day: Gladiator Robyn. This pic was taken in Caesarea at the remains of the Hippodrome in the old chambers that held gladiators before they went out to fight. I know I look really threatening in my dress...