Negotiating About Charges and Pleas: Balancing Interests and Justice (original) (raw)
2014, Group Decision and Negotiation
There is a worldwide movement towards alternatives to judicial decisionmaking for legal disputes. In the domain of criminal sentencing, in Western countries more than 95 % of cases are guilty pleas, with many being decided by negotiations over charges and pleas, rather than a decision being made after a judge or jury has heard all relevant evidence in a trial. Because decisions are being made, and people incarcerated on the basis of negotiations, it is important that such negotiations be just and fair. In this paper we discuss issues of fairness in plea-bargaining and how we can develop systems to support the process of plea and charge negotiation. We discuss how we are using Toulmin's theory of argumentation and Lodder and Zeleznikow's model of online dispute resolution to develop just plea bargaining systems. A specific investigation of the process of charge mentions is discussed.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
Related papers
Toward a Common Law of Plea Bargaining
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013
PLEA bargaining has been quite accurately described as "an informal, administrative, inquisitorial process of adjudication." 2 Those who brag of the superiority of the American criminal justice system often praise its adversarial, as opposed to inquisitorial, nature.' Yet for approximately ninetyfive percent of all defendants, the prosecutor is, for all practical purposes, the only judge they will encounter. 4 The prosecutor-judges who resolve these cases do so without necessarily referring to how any other case was resolved and do not follow any particular procedure, formal or informal, in deciding how to make offers.s Their decisions are not subject to review and largely avoid public scrutiny. 6 Defense lawyers, in part for reasons of their own making, are ill equipped for whatever idiosyncratic process a particular prosecutor's office
The Boundaries of Plea Bargaining: Negotiating the Standard of Proof
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 2006
The paper explores the boundaries of the plea bargaining process, and makes a case for extending them to the criminal standard of proof. It examines the possibility of converting the criminal standard of proof into a default rule, subject to negotiation between the parties. Under current plea bargaining practices, the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for concessions on punishment offered by the prosecutor. According to the model proposed here, the negotiation process would not be limited to the attainment of a full admission of guilt. Rather, the prosecutor would also be able to obtain from the defendant a reduction of the standard of proof required to establish criminal culpability, in return for an offer of leniency in sentencing. For instance, the parties could agree that the case will be tried according to the civil standard of proof – the preponderance of the evidence. In exchange for the greater risk of conviction, faced by the defendant under a lower standard of p...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.