It also has to do with the overall cost of a court case. Average cost of the five non-death penalty notice cases was $55,606. .
So, does the plea bargain deal leave room for the criminal to sleaze away or is it an effective way of serving justice? Let's look at the stats of this in America, more than 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions result from guilty pleas. Recognizing that reality, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 this week that defendants have a constitutional right to be informed by their lawyers about the possibility of a plea bargain and the implications of turning one down. The United States court system has turned from a trial system to a plea system. So is justice ever being served? In an 'ideal world", plea bargaining would not exist. Most defenders of plea bargaining believe that without it an already overburdened criminal justice system would grind to a halt. Plea bargaining is seen as a way to weaken deterrence. The very essence of deterrence is credibility. Deterrence is weakened as the criminal brags about his deal and spreads word throughout the community that the law has no "teeth." Also, plea bargaining tends to extort guilty pleas. A 1967 report issued by the President's commission on Law Enforcement put the issue squarely: "There are also real dangers that excessive rewards will be offered to induce pleas or that prosecutors will threaten to seek a harsh sentence if the defendant does not plead guilty. These practices place unacceptable burdens on the defendant who legitimately insists upon his right to trial." .
Underlying many plea negotiations is the understanding - or threat - that if the defendant goes to trial and is convicted he will be dealt with more harshly than would be the case if he had pleaded guilty. An innocent defendant might be persuaded that the harsher sentence he must face if he is unable to prove his innocence at trial means that it is to his best interest to plead guilty despite his innocence.