A plea bargain may be acceptable to an innocent defendant if the appearance of guilt is strong. How do we reconcile the benefits of plea bargaining with the importance of justice?
We have mandatory life fixed sentences only reduce flexibility. No plea bargaining never works in practice. But fixed sentences more predictable, which is important four appearance of justice. In the adversary system of Justice, everyone charged with a crime has the right to rely on the presumption of innocence.(Hendrix, pg. 237). This why I believe if you are innocent you never take a plea bargain. Facing Jury is the best way to go. A plea bargain is crap. Makes the guilty less innocent and makes the innocent guilty. Like, if you kill or rape someone and get caught own up to it. Take plea bargain instead of lying and pleading innocent. Even though you are charged with a crime, you are nonetheless innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The truth of the matter is most societies also have experiences with crooked judged and greedy, unethical lawyers. There are corrupt police officers and prosecutors who will drop criminal charges if paid a sufficient sum. Making it okay to let the person exploit my neighbor as well. If I don’t fight evil, in the name of God. When it comes to those that are violating inalienable rights, then I’m basically saying that it’s okay. Citizens of the United States has become upset over the plea bargaining because it seems to make a mockery of the Justice system. Thousands of criminals are given reduce sentences or probation by pleading guilty to a lesser indictment. All ninety percent of convictions in the United States are obtained through plea bargains. I’ve known for quite some time that many inmates were actually innocent, and took plea bargains to avoid lengthy prison sentences, but these stats are beyond ridiculous. While many people may not afford to pay a private attorney to take a case to trial not afford to take a criminal case to trial, plea negotiations are an important part of the justice system; some say the most important considering a vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through plea deals rather than the trail.
In its search for justice, how should the judicial system balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the victim?
The judicial system should take their responsibility to protect victims very seriously, as stated they need to balance the rights of their victims delicately. And in the end, they must protect all people by exercising due diligence and good faith. The first step to justice would be to balance victims right to truth and the right of the accused to a fair trial. The fifth amendment states, in part, “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. (Hendrix, pg. 238). I hope this case brings about change to the legal system to find a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the compliant. No law is just which not balance rights accused and of the victim. Old ones do. The amended one does, It says that laws don’t remove evil; laws only restrain evil. And the less more governor when we have, the more freedom we process. The biblical worldview is the less; it gives people the most freedom. A system which favors the rights of the accused over the rights of the victim is not balanced. The system must protect the victim irrespective of circumstances of the case. The rights to a fair trail are guaranteed to the person accused, not the cops the victim or the witnesses not even to the government bringing changes. We are fundamentally people at the beginning of the day, with certain inalienable rights. Some are easy to remember, like freedom of speech and the rights to bear arms, other rights are implied by reading between the lines of the constitution, such as the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, and the right to vote. It only means of the Due Process clause that these rights may be lawful. Commanders need to “start believing”. Believe that there is a problem, and believing victims when they come forward. These doesn’t go contrary to “innocent until proven guilty”, but balances the rights of the accused with the critical act of believing the victims throughout the process.