Plea Agreements Essays

Submitted By melt731
Words: 1094
Pages: 5

A “plea agreement” is an agreement the defendant agrees to in order for the case not to go to trial. The agreement often offers the accused a lesser sentence than they would have received had they gone to trial. The agreement usually involves leniency from the judge and the prosecutor, and can typically be made during any stage of the case. Long story short, plea agreements are a way for courts to get rid of a large amount of cases while trying to serve justice at the same time. Before a plea agreement can be reached the defendant must go through the initial stages of formal charging. Meaning they have been formally arrested, they have been informed of the charges being brought against them, they have already made an appearance before a judge, the decision on bail has been made, and they have been assigned an attorney if needed.
At this point if the case is serious enough to move forward, formal charges are brought against the accused and they must submit a plea to the charges being brought against him or her. The judge, prosecutor and the defense attorney will discuss the case and a plea agreement may be offered to the defendant. Most cases end this way and the defendant will accept the agreement they are offered. If they don’t accept the offer the trial moves forward. My opinion of plea bargains is that they are very useful in keeping many cases simple and keeping cost down. They also guarantee that a case will not be thrown out and the criminal will serve time behind bars. If the case goes to trial there is always a possibility that it could be thrown out or the defendant found not guilty. It’s difficult to say because If it was a loved one that was hurt you wouldn’t want the defendant to be offered a lighter sentence but you also wouldn’t want them to be able to walk away if for some reason the case gets thrown out or they were found not guilty. Emotions aside I think plea agreements should be used to conclude a case as long as the sentencing is still fair to the victims.

The reason for a grand jury hearing is to decide if the trial has probable cause to move forward to trial. During this hearing the prosecutor presents the evidence to the jury by himself. At this point the defendant has no right to present their case so the jury makes their decision based solely on what they hear from the prosecution. The jury then votes if probable cause has been proven. If it has, the jury will issue a “true bill of indictment”. If the jury finds that probable cause has not been met they will issue a “no true bill”. The prosecutor must sell the court on the case. I support the public being able to make sure that citizens are given fair trials but I don’t support the jury deciding whether the defendant is found guilty or not guilty. I believe that it should be left to the professionals. People who do work as judges and lawyers are trained to use their discretion and not make decisions on an emotional basis. They are trained to recognize disturbed and dangerous individual while regular citizens may not. Everyday citizens often make emotional decisions. They may feel sorry or relate to the defendant. The defendant could be a manipulator and make the jury feel sympathy for them. People are also very stubborn and often very set in their ways. They might not be able to view something from a different point of view. The way the world is right now I personally would not want a group of strangers deciding on my fate. There are too many weird, radical individuals out there.

The appointment of federal judges is outlined in Article 111 of the constitution. It’s a clear-cut process in which the president nominates a person for federal judgeship and then Senate must confirm the individual.
There are no actual formal qualifications to be appointed as a federal judge. However as with everything in politics, there are informal qualifications. The nominees are normally very involved and supportive of a