Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional Essay Example

Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? Essay Is Plea Bargain Unconstitutional The goal of this research paper is to analyze plea bargain and discuss whether it complies with Constitution of United States. In order to accomplish this goal, conception of plea is explained in details, as well as its advantages and disadvantages for some of the participants and the system as a whole. Also Constitution is analyzed in terms of plea bargaining case in order to find out how it correlates with principal law. Besides cases of using plea bargaining and their results are explained in this research paper. Before going into further discussion I would like to briefly explain the basic conception. Judicial system is designed to punish those people that committed crimes through the system of jury trials where criminal defendant is considered as guilty or not guilty. So, at first glance it looks unavoidable that all criminals are punished according and in proportion to their crimes. In fact, there is another way of judging and punishing criminals that does not include jury trials and fair judicial process that finds defendant guilty or not guilty. This system is called plea bargaining. A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with recommendation of a lighter than maximum sentence. Plea bargains have its advantages and disadvantages. First of all, plea bargain has benefits for criminals that really did the crime. It allows them to avoid the risk of conviction at trial and receive full term of punishment for their crimes. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer For example, they could be offered to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge instead of felony charge. No wonder that this practice became very popular in United States. Also most of the involved parties benefit from plea bargaining. Criminals receive lesser punishment and therefore they tend to plead guilty. The cases finish earlier with predicted results so prosecutors also enjoy less workload as well as clerks that work with documentations. Money of taxpayers is also spent less both on the trial process and imprisonment. The most obvious disadvantage of plea bargaining is that it does not protect innocent people and leave no chance for them to be free after the court. Plea bargain presumes minimization of imprisonment term, not its full abolition. So, innocent people may choose plea bargain option because they fear to receive even stronger punishment. And that is indeed the most serious problem of this agreement. Plea bargain minimizes punishment for criminals with serious record, but punishes innocent people that were not able to prove their innocent to the prosecutor and therefore they go to prison for the same period of time as people that did accomplish the crime. Also this is another problem of plea bargain. It presumes that defendant is guilty without proving this with evidence and reasoning, while according to legislation nobody can be called guilty without proving. As well plea bargain becomes popular choice for people that do not their rights and legislation system and do not have money to afford a lawyer to defend their rights in court. So, besides unfairness and infringement of rights, this agreement uses weak position of the defendant to punish him or her without guilt and therefore is not democratic process, but creates groundless advantages for those who know judicial system very good or have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them in court. So, in general plea bargaining proves to be unclear practice that creates benefits for criminals that know and infringe laws and puts innocent people in unstable position where they should choose between taking short term punishment without being guilty or receive even higher term after trial. But what is even more impressive is that statistically 9 out of 10 such criminal cases finish with plea bargain. Such proportion becomes clear after we go deeper into this system. In fact, judicial system does not only encourage criminal defendants to use plea bargain to receive less severe punishment, but it also retaliates those who dared to request trial by jury in order to defend their right for liberty. The most well-known case of such situation is so-called watershed precedent of Paul Lewis Hayes, which was indicted for attempting to pass forged check to the amount of $88. Such kind of crime is punishable by prison term of two to 10 years. So the prosecutor offered Hayes five years if he would plead guilty and waive this right to trial. Also the prosecutor made it clear that if Hayes rejects the offer, the state would seek a new indictment from a grand jury under Kentucky’s Habitual Criminal Act. Under this Hayes would receive life sentence taking into consideration his previous criminal record. Despite all these circumstances and high pressure, Hayes decided to insist on his right to jury trial. But in spite of his expectations, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, plea bargaining has another advantage over jury trial – it allows criminal defendants not only to avoid full punishment, but also protects them from additional convictions. But as this case proves, it is possible to receive even higher punishment if one tries to defend his or her rights in trial. In order to prove or disapprove unconstitutional character of the plea bargain practice one should refer to the source. First of all, Bill or Rights guarantees the following rights: †¢the right to be informed of the charges, †¢the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy and public trial, †¢the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses, †¢the right to call witnesses on one’s own behalf, †¢the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Fifth Amendment prohibits self-incrimination while Sixth Amendment guarantees impartial juries. Thus, Bill of Rights limits powers of police and prosecutors in order to safeguard our freedom. Thus, all this basically confirms that plea bargaining limited rights of U. S. itizen in many aspects: †¢it limits the right to be informed of the charges because defendant prepares a waiver that enable the prosecutor to set punishment as he or she pleases and offers, †¢it limits the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself because the person actually incriminates oneself and plead guilty, †¢it limits the right to a speedy and public trial because no trial is conducted in case of plea bargaining, †¢it limits the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢it limits the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses because no witnesses are used in this case, †¢as well it limits the right to call witness es on one’s own behalf and the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Constitution gives a citizen the right to defend oneself and guarantees his or her liberty before it was proven by the court that he or she is guilty. According to Justice Hugo Black, defendant â€Å"has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it! ’† Thus, in spite of providing such extended rights by Bill of Rights, efendants lose all of them because they are forced into practice of plea bargain that offers them to plead guilty without any trial and abandon all their rights given by Constitution. Therefore, by formal evidence we see that plea bargain is unconstitutional. It does not only takes the citizen rights, which are guaranteed by Constitution of United States, but also punishes those who dared to object against this and want to realize their right to jury trial. The problem is that it is impossible to convince the court that by offering plea bargain, the prosecutor violates the Constitution by threatening to punish the defendant or simply invoking his or her right to trial. And therefore the defendant will receive the most hard punishment possible in case of trial after offering plea bargaining. In case of Hayes, he was not able to defend his right to trial because the court admitted that a new indictment was filed against him that deterred him from exercising this right. Also the Court declined to overturn his sentence because he could have avoided life imprisonment risk if he admitted his guilt and accepted five years of prison. Still, there are viewpoints that find this decision improper and unlawful. Indeed detailed analysis of Hayes case shows that the idea of plea bargaining cannot withstand any serious scrutiny. First of all, the choice that was offered was not within constitutional rationale. The defendant should choose between two evils: going to prison for five years or for a lifetime. Actually it has nothing to do with freedom of choice, but with forcing to agree with proposed punishment. The same principle can be applied to false imprisonment action from one female to a male acquaintance that forced her to travel by car instead of going by train. Actually he gave her choice – to go without her purse by train after he took the purse out of train. And when he dragged her out of train he gave her another opportunity to leave or to go by car. So as we see offering limited choices has nothing to do with fair conduct. Another fiction of plea bargaining that is used by its followers is that government does not retaliate against individuals that wish to execute their right to jury trial. When, in fact, these people are punished very severely like in the case of Hayes. Also plea bargaining is used in cases when legislation of different states is opposite like strict laws against handgun possession in Washington D. C. Tourists from other states are often taken by the local police that takes their guns and offers them to plead guilty is possession of illegal arms. In case if the tourists disagree with this offer, they can receive worse accusations – for example, for each bullet. So most of the tourists decide to agree that they are guilty and give their handgun to the police. Thus, in spite of the fact that Constitution of United States provides its citizens with rights to defend themselves against accusations, in reality there are numerous practices of ignoring these rights and offering propositions that do not comply with Act of Rights but can lead to much worse situations if they are to be rejected and if defendant decides to defend his or her rights at court. Moreover, there are viewpoints that there is nothing wrong with such practices. There are many followers among prosecutors and civilians that argue that Constitution defended citizens in old times when court practices were different. Nowadays we have courts without jury so in some cases it should be beneficial for the defendant to reduce his or her punishment by pleading guilty. Such people argue that right to trial is not inalienable because most of the rights are beneficial due to their abilities to be sold and purchased. So, they offer to view plea bargaining as a deal – to waive the right for trial and receive less punishment instead of it. It should be emphasized that there was no single opinion about this topic. For example, in 1858 New York court decided in case Cancemi v. People that defendant should not be able to waive a jury trial because â€Å"the law does recognize the doctrine of waiver to a great extent even to the deprivation of constitutional private rights†. Still in 1879 Iowa Supreme Court took the opposite decision in case State v. Kaufman. According to the Court, â€Å"Reasons other than the fact that he is guilty may induce a defendant to so plead et the state never actively interferes in such case, and the right of the defendant to so plead has never been doubted. He must be permitted to judge for himself in this respect. Why should he not be permitted to do so? Why hamper him in this respect? Why restrain his liberty or right to do as he believed to be for his interests? Whatever rule is adopted affects not only the defendant, but all others similarly situated, no matter how much they desire to avail themselves of the right to do what the defendant desires to repudiate. We are unwilling to establish such a rule. † In several years after this case, Iowa Supreme Court changed his mind in State v. Carman case and then one more time in 1980 in case State v. Henderson. Connecticut Court disallowed ury waivers in 1878 while Louisiana allowed them in 1881. Nowadays it is well-known that jury trial right is alienable and nothing in the Constitution said the opposite. Thus, defendant can sell this right in order to receive some benefits. And in case of guilty people this enables them to improve their situation. From this point of view case of Hayes becomes more complicated. If defendant has a right to w aive his or her rights to get benefits, then Hayes should take his opportunity and agree to plead guilty in order to receive shorter term of imprisonment. And indeed he should not complain that after trial his punishment increased significantly – from up to 10 years to lifetime in prison. Another argument against plea bargaining states that in case of several people that committed the same crime, these people will receive different punishment on the basis of their decisions to agree that they are guilty without trial or go to trial that can decide about different terms for each of them. Also someone who is not guilty may be so afraid that he or she decides to plead guilty in order to avoid trial. These arguments can be opposed with the same reasoning that people choose their future on the basis of their decisions and plea bargaining is one of them. Thus, there are a lot of discussions about plea bargaining and actually no single opinion about the agreement. There are viewpoints that it is not constitutional because it does not comply with Act of Rights and Fifth and Six Amendments. Therefore it should not be practiced. Also there are opinions that there is no direct objection against it in Constitution so there is no reason to argue about unconstitutional character of plea bargaining. In my opinion, plea bargaining should be an additional option for the defendant, not the main one and obviously not the best possible. Nowadays it is an instrument of pressure of prosecutors on defendants in order to win the case. The only defendants that benefit from this agreement are criminals that decided to confirm their guilt in order to reduce the punishment, while innocent people are threaten by severe punishment might decide to agree with plea bargaining to avoid risk of longer terms of imprisonment. Therefore, in my opinion, the accents should be shifted and court should not make pressure on defendants to take this decision and obviously not to retaliate against them if they express wish to defend their rights in court. References: 1. Colquitt J. , (2001), Ad Hoc Plea Bargaining. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 75 . 2. Cooley Th. , (1868), A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations on the Police Power of the States, Boston, Mass. : Little, Brown. 3. Fine R. A. , (1987), Escape of the Guilty. New York. 4. Fisher G. , (2003), Plea Bargaining’s Triumph, Stanford, Calif. , 5. Stanford University Press. 6. Guidorizzi D. , (1998), Should We Really â€Å"Ban† Plea Bargaining? The Core Concerns of Plea Bargaining Critics, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 47. 7. Langbein J. H. (1980) Torture and Plea Bargaining, The Public Interest. 8. Lynch T. , (2002), An Eerie Efficiency, Cato Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1. 9. Lynch T. , (1994), Rethinking the Petty Offense Doctrine, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 4. 10. Mazzone J. , (2003), The Waiver Paradox, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 97. 11. Roberts P. C. , Stratton L. M. , (2000), The Tyranny of Good Intentions, New York. 12. Ramsey C. , (2002) , The Discretionary Power of ‘Public’ Prosecutors in 13. Historical Perspective, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 39. 14. Towne S. , (1982), The Historical Origins of Bench Trial for Serious Crime, American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 26. Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional Essay Example Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? Essay Is Plea Bargain Unconstitutional The goal of this research paper is to analyze plea bargain and discuss whether it complies with Constitution of United States. In order to accomplish this goal, conception of plea is explained in details, as well as its advantages and disadvantages for some of the participants and the system as a whole. Also Constitution is analyzed in terms of plea bargaining case in order to find out how it correlates with principal law. Besides cases of using plea bargaining and their results are explained in this research paper. Before going into further discussion I would like to briefly explain the basic conception. Judicial system is designed to punish those people that committed crimes through the system of jury trials where criminal defendant is considered as guilty or not guilty. So, at first glance it looks unavoidable that all criminals are punished according and in proportion to their crimes. In fact, there is another way of judging and punishing criminals that does not include jury trials and fair judicial process that finds defendant guilty or not guilty. This system is called plea bargaining. A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecutor offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty, usually to a lesser charge or to the original criminal charge with recommendation of a lighter than maximum sentence. Plea bargains have its advantages and disadvantages. First of all, plea bargain has benefits for criminals that really did the crime. It allows them to avoid the risk of conviction at trial and receive full term of punishment for their crimes. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Is Plea Bargaining Unconstitutional? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer For example, they could be offered to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge instead of felony charge. No wonder that this practice became very popular in United States. Also most of the involved parties benefit from plea bargaining. Criminals receive lesser punishment and therefore they tend to plead guilty. The cases finish earlier with predicted results so prosecutors also enjoy less workload as well as clerks that work with documentations. Money of taxpayers is also spent less both on the trial process and imprisonment. The most obvious disadvantage of plea bargaining is that it does not protect innocent people and leave no chance for them to be free after the court. Plea bargain presumes minimization of imprisonment term, not its full abolition. So, innocent people may choose plea bargain option because they fear to receive even stronger punishment. And that is indeed the most serious problem of this agreement. Plea bargain minimizes punishment for criminals with serious record, but punishes innocent people that were not able to prove their innocent to the prosecutor and therefore they go to prison for the same period of time as people that did accomplish the crime. Also this is another problem of plea bargain. It presumes that defendant is guilty without proving this with evidence and reasoning, while according to legislation nobody can be called guilty without proving. As well plea bargain becomes popular choice for people that do not their rights and legislation system and do not have money to afford a lawyer to defend their rights in court. So, besides unfairness and infringement of rights, this agreement uses weak position of the defendant to punish him or her without guilt and therefore is not democratic process, but creates groundless advantages for those who know judicial system very good or have enough money to hire a lawyer to defend them in court. So, in general plea bargaining proves to be unclear practice that creates benefits for criminals that know and infringe laws and puts innocent people in unstable position where they should choose between taking short term punishment without being guilty or receive even higher term after trial. But what is even more impressive is that statistically 9 out of 10 such criminal cases finish with plea bargain. Such proportion becomes clear after we go deeper into this system. In fact, judicial system does not only encourage criminal defendants to use plea bargain to receive less severe punishment, but it also retaliates those who dared to request trial by jury in order to defend their right for liberty. The most well-known case of such situation is so-called watershed precedent of Paul Lewis Hayes, which was indicted for attempting to pass forged check to the amount of $88. Such kind of crime is punishable by prison term of two to 10 years. So the prosecutor offered Hayes five years if he would plead guilty and waive this right to trial. Also the prosecutor made it clear that if Hayes rejects the offer, the state would seek a new indictment from a grand jury under Kentucky’s Habitual Criminal Act. Under this Hayes would receive life sentence taking into consideration his previous criminal record. Despite all these circumstances and high pressure, Hayes decided to insist on his right to jury trial. But in spite of his expectations, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thus, plea bargaining has another advantage over jury trial – it allows criminal defendants not only to avoid full punishment, but also protects them from additional convictions. But as this case proves, it is possible to receive even higher punishment if one tries to defend his or her rights in trial. In order to prove or disapprove unconstitutional character of the plea bargain practice one should refer to the source. First of all, Bill or Rights guarantees the following rights: †¢the right to be informed of the charges, †¢the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, the right to a speedy and public trial, †¢the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses, †¢the right to call witnesses on one’s own behalf, †¢the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Fifth Amendment prohibits self-incrimination while Sixth Amendment guarantees impartial juries. Thus, Bill of Rights limits powers of police and prosecutors in order to safeguard our freedom. Thus, all this basically confirms that plea bargaining limited rights of U. S. itizen in many aspects: †¢it limits the right to be informed of the charges because defendant prepares a waiver that enable the prosecutor to set punishment as he or she pleases and offers, †¢it limits the right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself because the person actually incriminates oneself and plead guilty, †¢it limits the right to a speedy and public trial because no trial is conducted in case of plea bargaining, †¢it limits the right to an impartial jury trial in the state and district where the offense took place, †¢it limits the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses because no witnesses are used in this case, †¢as well it limits the right to call witness es on one’s own behalf and the right to the assistance of counsel. So, Constitution gives a citizen the right to defend oneself and guarantees his or her liberty before it was proven by the court that he or she is guilty. According to Justice Hugo Black, defendant â€Å"has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it! ’† Thus, in spite of providing such extended rights by Bill of Rights, efendants lose all of them because they are forced into practice of plea bargain that offers them to plead guilty without any trial and abandon all their rights given by Constitution. Therefore, by formal evidence we see that plea bargain is unconstitutional. It does not only takes the citizen rights, which are guaranteed by Constitution of United States, but also punishes those who dared to object against this and want to realize their right to jury trial. The problem is that it is impossible to convince the court that by offering plea bargain, the prosecutor violates the Constitution by threatening to punish the defendant or simply invoking his or her right to trial. And therefore the defendant will receive the most hard punishment possible in case of trial after offering plea bargaining. In case of Hayes, he was not able to defend his right to trial because the court admitted that a new indictment was filed against him that deterred him from exercising this right. Also the Court declined to overturn his sentence because he could have avoided life imprisonment risk if he admitted his guilt and accepted five years of prison. Still, there are viewpoints that find this decision improper and unlawful. Indeed detailed analysis of Hayes case shows that the idea of plea bargaining cannot withstand any serious scrutiny. First of all, the choice that was offered was not within constitutional rationale. The defendant should choose between two evils: going to prison for five years or for a lifetime. Actually it has nothing to do with freedom of choice, but with forcing to agree with proposed punishment. The same principle can be applied to false imprisonment action from one female to a male acquaintance that forced her to travel by car instead of going by train. Actually he gave her choice – to go without her purse by train after he took the purse out of train. And when he dragged her out of train he gave her another opportunity to leave or to go by car. So as we see offering limited choices has nothing to do with fair conduct. Another fiction of plea bargaining that is used by its followers is that government does not retaliate against individuals that wish to execute their right to jury trial. When, in fact, these people are punished very severely like in the case of Hayes. Also plea bargaining is used in cases when legislation of different states is opposite like strict laws against handgun possession in Washington D. C. Tourists from other states are often taken by the local police that takes their guns and offers them to plead guilty is possession of illegal arms. In case if the tourists disagree with this offer, they can receive worse accusations – for example, for each bullet. So most of the tourists decide to agree that they are guilty and give their handgun to the police. Thus, in spite of the fact that Constitution of United States provides its citizens with rights to defend themselves against accusations, in reality there are numerous practices of ignoring these rights and offering propositions that do not comply with Act of Rights but can lead to much worse situations if they are to be rejected and if defendant decides to defend his or her rights at court. Moreover, there are viewpoints that there is nothing wrong with such practices. There are many followers among prosecutors and civilians that argue that Constitution defended citizens in old times when court practices were different. Nowadays we have courts without jury so in some cases it should be beneficial for the defendant to reduce his or her punishment by pleading guilty. Such people argue that right to trial is not inalienable because most of the rights are beneficial due to their abilities to be sold and purchased. So, they offer to view plea bargaining as a deal – to waive the right for trial and receive less punishment instead of it. It should be emphasized that there was no single opinion about this topic. For example, in 1858 New York court decided in case Cancemi v. People that defendant should not be able to waive a jury trial because â€Å"the law does recognize the doctrine of waiver to a great extent even to the deprivation of constitutional private rights†. Still in 1879 Iowa Supreme Court took the opposite decision in case State v. Kaufman. According to the Court, â€Å"Reasons other than the fact that he is guilty may induce a defendant to so plead et the state never actively interferes in such case, and the right of the defendant to so plead has never been doubted. He must be permitted to judge for himself in this respect. Why should he not be permitted to do so? Why hamper him in this respect? Why restrain his liberty or right to do as he believed to be for his interests? Whatever rule is adopted affects not only the defendant, but all others similarly situated, no matter how much they desire to avail themselves of the right to do what the defendant desires to repudiate. We are unwilling to establish such a rule. † In several years after this case, Iowa Supreme Court changed his mind in State v. Carman case and then one more time in 1980 in case State v. Henderson. Connecticut Court disallowed ury waivers in 1878 while Louisiana allowed them in 1881. Nowadays it is well-known that jury trial right is alienable and nothing in the Constitution said the opposite. Thus, defendant can sell this right in order to receive some benefits. And in case of guilty people this enables them to improve their situation. From this point of view case of Hayes becomes more complicated. If defendant has a right to w aive his or her rights to get benefits, then Hayes should take his opportunity and agree to plead guilty in order to receive shorter term of imprisonment. And indeed he should not complain that after trial his punishment increased significantly – from up to 10 years to lifetime in prison. Another argument against plea bargaining states that in case of several people that committed the same crime, these people will receive different punishment on the basis of their decisions to agree that they are guilty without trial or go to trial that can decide about different terms for each of them. Also someone who is not guilty may be so afraid that he or she decides to plead guilty in order to avoid trial. These arguments can be opposed with the same reasoning that people choose their future on the basis of their decisions and plea bargaining is one of them. Thus, there are a lot of discussions about plea bargaining and actually no single opinion about the agreement. There are viewpoints that it is not constitutional because it does not comply with Act of Rights and Fifth and Six Amendments. Therefore it should not be practiced. Also there are opinions that there is no direct objection against it in Constitution so there is no reason to argue about unconstitutional character of plea bargaining. In my opinion, plea bargaining should be an additional option for the defendant, not the main one and obviously not the best possible. Nowadays it is an instrument of pressure of prosecutors on defendants in order to win the case. The only defendants that benefit from this agreement are criminals that decided to confirm their guilt in order to reduce the punishment, while innocent people are threaten by severe punishment might decide to agree with plea bargaining to avoid risk of longer terms of imprisonment. Therefore, in my opinion, the accents should be shifted and court should not make pressure on defendants to take this decision and obviously not to retaliate against them if they express wish to defend their rights in court. References: 1. Colquitt J. , (2001), Ad Hoc Plea Bargaining. Tulane Law Review, Vol. 75 . 2. Cooley Th. , (1868), A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations on the Police Power of the States, Boston, Mass. : Little, Brown. 3. Fine R. A. , (1987), Escape of the Guilty. New York. 4. Fisher G. , (2003), Plea Bargaining’s Triumph, Stanford, Calif. , 5. Stanford University Press. 6. Guidorizzi D. , (1998), Should We Really â€Å"Ban† Plea Bargaining? The Core Concerns of Plea Bargaining Critics, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 47. 7. Langbein J. H. (1980) Torture and Plea Bargaining, The Public Interest. 8. Lynch T. , (2002), An Eerie Efficiency, Cato Supreme Court Review, Vol. 1. 9. Lynch T. , (1994), Rethinking the Petty Offense Doctrine, Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 4. 10. Mazzone J. , (2003), The Waiver Paradox, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 97. 11. Roberts P. C. , Stratton L. M. , (2000), The Tyranny of Good Intentions, New York. 12. Ramsey C. , (2002) , The Discretionary Power of ‘Public’ Prosecutors in 13. Historical Perspective, American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 39. 14. Towne S. , (1982), The Historical Origins of Bench Trial for Serious Crime, American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 26.