Plea Bargaining 119forensic psychological practitioner. The defendant's competency to enter a plea ot
guilty, as well as whether the decision is in fact voluntary; are questions which must
be addressed.
In light of the fact that the defendant essentially waives his or her constitutional
rights by entering a plea of guilty, the Supreme Court has held that the judge
must "affirmatively establish on the record" the defendant's competency to plead
guilty (Melton et al., 1987, p. 97). In assessing competency, the primary questions
that need to be addressed by the forensic psychologist include the defendant's {1)
reasons for pleading guilty, (2) understanding of the specific rights being waived,
and (3) understanding of the charge he or she is admitting to. The judge must
therefore determine whether the guilty plea is completely voluntary. In order for
a plea bargain to occur, the defendant must be fully aware of the meaning and
consequences ot his or her plea. Even if the defendant is legally competent to make
such a decision, questions arise as to whether he or she reached such a decision by
way of a logical, rational process. It is this issue which has generated interest in the
role of coercion in plea bargaining.
Plea bargains are often perceived by the defendant as a favorable means to resolve
the case, as they often result in less aversive consequences than would be risked
through a jury trial. The plea, then, may be considered an issue of avoidance rather
than a logical decision. The question for the forensic psychological practitioner is
whether the defendant is making a voluntary choice based in his or her own best
interest or whether he or she is coerced into an involuntary plea by fear. Reinforcing
this fear are the common practices of overcharging and overrecommending. Police
often charge arrested individuals with every possible crime related to their actions.
Overcharging both increases the likelihood of a plea bargain and, if a jury trial
ensues, gives the jurors the impression that: the defendant committed numerous
wrongdoings. In either case, the result of overcharging is an increased chance of the
defendant being found guilty, either through plea or by a jury. Overrecommending
is a strategic move by the prosecution to increase the level of fear in the defendant.
By threatening severe sentences, the chances are much greater that the defendant
will concede to a plea bargain to avoid such harsh punishment. Overcharging and
overrecommending are both strategies of the criminal justice system employed to
immerse the defendant in fear.
The "fear factor" generates an important question as to the voluntariness of
the defendant's plea. Truly innocent individuals may also feel coerced into pleading
guilty as they fear the consequences of trial. The Supreme Court addressed the issue
of coercion in North Carolina v. Afford (1970). Alford was charged with first-degree
murder, a capital crime in North Carolina. Out of fear of the death penalty, Alford
agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of second-degree murder, which carried
a sentence of 30 years in prison. After the sentencing, Alford claimed that his plea
of guilty was not valid because it was the result of fear and coercion. Ultimately
the Supreme Court held that his plea was in fact valid, particularly as it was made
under the advice of competent legal counsel.