118 5 Court and the Legal System—Adult Forensics(Abadinsky & Winfree, 1992). It should be noted that the judge is typically not
obligated to follow the prosecutor's recommendation. Thus, if a defendant enters
a plea of guilty in exchange for the prosecution recommending a more lenient,
sentence, lie or she should be aware that the judge is the final bearer of all deci-
sions. The judge may decide that the defendant's crime is deserving of the harshest
punishment allowable by law, regardless of the plea bargaining agreement. Though
judges often do follow the prosecutor's recommendation, there is no guarantee
(L. Wrightsman, et al., \ 994). Particularly with regard to sentencing leniency, some
judges believe that always accepting the prosecutor's recommendation without first
considering such issues as seriousness of the crime, harm to the victim, and the
offender's background discredits their duty as a judge (L. Wrightsman et al., 1994).
Plea bargaining thus appears to be beneficial for both the prosecution and the
defendant. The admission of guilt relieves the prosecution of having to prove that
the defendant did indeed commit the crime(s), thereby eliminating the uncertainty
of a trial. Further, and perhaps more important, it relieves the prosecution and State
of the burden of a lengthy, time-consuming, and expensive trial. For the defendant,
the perceived benefit is leniency in one or more of the ways discussed above. The
continuing controversy concerning plea bargaining, however, generates questions
as to whether the practice of plea bargaining actually does serve justice or is in fact
unjust.
Proponents of plea bargaining insist that it is an absolutely necessary component
of the criminal justice system. Plea bargaining (1) keeps cases moving through the
system without adding to the backlog of cases already present; (2) allows for cases
to be settled promptly and with a sense of finality; and (3) spares the victim and/or
his or her family, police officers, and others involved in the case from having to
spend hours testifying in court and reliving the experience (L. Wrightsman ct al.,
1994). Proponents of plea bargaining have obtained support from the courts as
well. In Santobello v. New York (1971) the Supreme Court upheld plea bargaining,
agreeing that it was a necessary component of the criminal justice system. Though
plea bargaining is arguably beneficial in several ways, it has been equally denounced
for not serving justice.
Plea bargaining has been criticized as being unjust for several reasons. Critics
feel that it results in improper sentencing, either too harsh or, more often, too
lenient (L. Wrightsman ct al., 1994). The media's portrayal, and often the public's
perception, of plea bargaining is that it is an abuse of discretion and results in serious
criminals "getting off easy" (Abadinsky & Winfree, 1992). Others argue that plea
bargaining is unjust to the defendant. They claim that the defendant's justice is
jeopardized in the following ways: (1) by agreeing to a plea bargain, he or she is
surrendering his or her constitutional rights; (2) disparity in sentencing is inevitable
(all defendants do not receive the same "deals"); and (3) innocent as well as guilty
defendants may feel coerced into pleading guilty because they fear the more severe
consequences which may result if convicted by way of a jury trial (L. Wrightsman
et al., 1994). From these issues, considerations of particular relevance arise for the