In the United States judicial system, everyone, no matter what their status in society or what the crime being charged, has a right to a speedy and just trial. When an element such as plea-bargaining is added to the mix, certain rights are revoked and people who would have been harshly sentenced had they had a trial, end up with a simple slap on the hand. Plea-bargaining has many favorable aspects especially when it comes down to the government saving some money. I would have to agree with those who believe that plea-bargaining does corrupt the American system of justice. The people who are receiving these plea bargains are just looking for an easy way out and the government is looking to save a few bucks.
First there is the issue of one giving up their constitutional right to a trial. In 1969, the Warren court added some requirements for acceptance of a plea bargain. In Boykin v Alabama, The entry of the plea must be knowledgeable and the trial record must reflect this due to the waiver of the sixth amendment rights to a fair trial. (Nasheri, 1998) An accused is faced with the option of pleading guilty with a lesser charge or having a trial and possibly getting a harsher sentence. For a person who is innocent, this is not much of an option. I do believe that if a person is innocent and is offered a plea bargain, they would be opted to reject it and fight in Court. Unfortunately, those who cannot afford the expenses that are associated with going to Court are at a loss. They would be forced to choose the plea bargain. This would leave those who are guilty. Of course if you are guilty of a crime, you are going to take an offer that reduces your sentence and prevents you from having to participate in a trial that would potentially leave you with a worse sentence. At a glance, this option is a way of gambling with one's sentence.