Plea Bargains

To keep every trial from actually going to court, they settle it before it goes through trial in a plea agreement. This gives the defendant a set punishment, which is usually to good to pass up. In this case, both the prosecutor and the defendant wins. The prosecutor saves money and time while the defendant wins a discounted sentence. Most people would not argue about the government saving tax money, but when it also lets criminals back on the streets with just a slap on the hand, there becomes a problem. The main problem with this is that the government made strict punishment for crimes and then 90% of the time the punishments do not get enforced. Some people think there might actually be less crime in the United States if the government wasn't so easy on criminal cases. The judicial system uses plea bargains to keep a high conviction rate and to get the defendants to cooperate against others. Keeping a high conviction rate on criminals can't hurt, but using defendants to cooperate against others can be illegal when done incorrectly. There are three different kinds of plea bargains, some of which are less harmful than others.
             "The three kinds of bargains are the sentence bargain, the charge bargain, and the fact bargain. A sentence bargain is where the defendant agrees to a recommended sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. The sentence bargain is rather harmless; the only reason it appeals to the defendant is that it gives him certainty. The second type is the charge bargain is where the prosecutor agrees to reduce pending charges to something less serious in exchange for a guilty plea. Most of the time, the prosecutor only uses a charge bargain when he is not certain that he has enough evidence to convict the defendant. The defendant will usually accept the charge bargain for fear that he will be charged and later regret not taking it. The most controversial bargain is the fact bargain where they agree to change facts, like amount of drugs, in exchange for a guilty plea.