Guilty plea offers: no offer for anyone?

Plea Bargains. A good deal for someone guilty?

Good business for the state, since negotiations with the prosecution avoid a costly trial?

Here are some plea deals offered vs. actual sentences imposed which I personally learned about. I am omitting the last names of those mentioned.

Albert: sexual assault; He was offered a plea deal to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor, no mandatory sex offender treatment, no annual sex offender registration, and a 4-6 month jail term. He refused, saying, “I am not guilty.” After 2 trials, (jury stuck at first trial -10 for innocent; 2 undecided), the second jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 7-1 / 2 to 15 years.

Michael, sexual assault; He was offered a 1-year plea agreement with the stipulation that he had to complete treatment for the sex offender. He refused, went to trial, and is serving 2 consecutive 3-1 / 2-7 year sentences (i.e. a possibility of 15 years total).

Carl, sexual assault; he was offered 2 to 6 years as an agreement with the prosecution. He refused, claiming innocence; He was found guilty and sentenced to 7-1 / 2 to 15 years plus 6-12 years, suspended, if he behaved well under the first sentence.

Are these plea agreements fair to the defendant? Are they fair to the victim? Are they fair to the public?

In New Hampshire, case law governs negotiations with the prosecution. “… (They) have been openly recognized as an appropriate part of the criminal process since 1970, even though they existed ….. since time immemorial.” (State vs. Manoly., 1970) This is also the case in virtually all other states.

Both defendants and prosecutors use negotiated plea and plea agreements. Why?

Obviously, if a plea bargain can be successfully negotiated, the expense of a trial can be avoided.

If the crime has traumatized a victim, a trial sometimes exacerbates that trauma further. Some victims refuse to testify or fear the idea of ​​confronting their abuser again. Think, if you were brutally raped, beaten or terrorized for hours, hit with a gun, etc., how would you feel going through a trial for hours or days, seeing the person who offended you? Would you be able to face the incessant questioning of the lawyers, about the incident, about your personal life – and with the public gaze – with the possibility that the details appear in the newspaper and on television?

So, would you be grateful that an agreement was reached with the prosecution and that the person who committed a crime was punished without your further involvement?

Or, on the other hand: What if you were willing to testify against this person and wanted him to receive the full sentence under the law, and then the state offered a settlement with the prosecution? What if that sentence could have been 10 to 20 years if a jury convicted him and the agreement with the prosecution was 2 to 4 years? Would you feel cheated? Would the public feel misled, thinking that this person should have had the full weight of the law applied and should not have received a shorter sentence just for pleading guilty?

In anticipation of this article, I asked an inmate at the Concord Men’s Prison how he felt about the prosecution agreements. (He had rejected one in his case and had been sentenced to triple the plea deal.) He said: “You are punished for exercising your right to a trial, if you are offered a plea agreement of 2 years, and you are told that you will receive up to 20 years if you lose at trial.” In other words, ‘If you insist that you have the right to trial, we will convict you and give you two, three times, etc. more years in jail than if you accepted our offer.

Atty. Michael Skibbie, former head of the Public Defender’s Office in Concord. NH, stated the following to a legislative committee:

“The overwhelming majority of cases in this country and in New Hampshire are resolved by guilty plea, not trial. Nationally, 80 to 90% of felony cases are resolved by guilty plea.” “Less than 10% of the serious crime cases we handle (Public Defender) actually go to a jury trial.”

He went on to explain why this happens, including the difficulty of trying to predict how a jury would react to the evidence, the defendant, and the alleged victim. He said, “I’ve won cases that I was sure I would lose, and I’ve lost cases that I was sure I would win. And most experienced criminal defense attorneys would tell you the same thing.” And prosecutors could say the same. “Obviously, both parties are at risk when they go to trial.”

I mentioned earlier that solving a case through an agreement with the prosecution avoids large expenses. Atty. Skibbie also testified how the prosecution settlements relieve the court of a monumental number of cases. Imagine if 90% of felony cases were negotiated now and that stopped! If you think the court system is stuck with backlogs right now, (which it is), think what it would be like with 9 times as many cases!

In addition, he commented on the prosecution’s justification for higher sentences if the defendant insisted on a trial and was later found guilty. One reason is the effect the trial has on victims and other civilian witnesses. Similarly, the defendant’s attorney is motivated to negotiate a guilty plea as “… which will normally be a modification of the charges, a recommendation of a sentence that the defendant will perceive as better than what he would get after trial, or both “. He said that in sex cases, there are additional factors for both parties to motivate the plea bargain.

“First, from a prosecutor’s perspective, these cases are associated with greater uncertainty …” “They are difficult cases for both parties. Even when prosecutors obtain convictions, the revocation rate is higher than in any other case.” . From the defense side, “The sentences after conviction, after trial, are very, very high. If you are a 20-year-old man and you potentially face 20 years in prison if you lose this trial, there are many people who they think that’s the end of their life: being 40 years old. “

Referring to the victim’s difficulties in having to speak about shameful and private matters during sex crimes trials, he said: “But on the other hand, there is probably nothing that is more difficult (for the defendant) to admit in court. public than a sex crime “, (in the case of a plea deal).

Another important factor in sexual assault cases is the possibility that the defendant will have to register every year for the rest of his life as a sex offender. If the prosecutor offers a plea agreement that still requires this provision, many defendants are distressed to accept the guilty plea. Some say “no”, preferring to risk it at trial. This “registration aspect” is unique to sexual offenses. If you rob a bank, brutally assault someone, kidnap a child, or even hold the police “at bay” with an assault rifle, you can “make a guilty plea”, and when you have served your sentence and are released, ” re ‘through’ with the system There is no record every year at the police station and there is no easy way for the public to find out that you have been incarcerated for committing a felony.

If you move to a different community or state, you can practically become anonymous in regards to your previous offense.

Would you accept a settlement with the prosecution? Would it be an easy decision for you? Atty. Skibbie put it quite succinctly: in a plea deal, “you’re talking about 5 years in prison versus 10 years in prison, or 7 years in prison versus 20 years in prison.”

“It is very, very difficult to make the decision to go to prison, even for a relatively short period of time.”

What if you are innocent? Suppose you are offered two years of negotiation with the prosecution, with a possible 20 if you lose at trial. Do you forget that you are innocent and accept the plea because you have heard that justice is not always fair and that you can be wrongly convicted?

I leave you with two more cases: real cases in New Hampshire. These are direct quotes from the condemned.

(one) “I have been a prisoner … since 1995. The day my trial began, I was offered a 4-year plea agreement … the deal was only on the table until the victim took the stand. I was innocent, I went to trial … “” I was convicted of 7 of the 12 charges. The judge sentenced me to 18-1 / 2 to 37 years, with a further deferred 14 to 28 years. Possibly I could serve a maximum of 65 years “. “If he were guilty, he would easily have accepted the guilty plea, would have completed the sex offender (treatment) program, and as of today, he would be living in the community.”

(other) “The prosecutor offered me a prison sentence of 5 years … (as a guilty plea).” “I refused … knowing my innocence (and) … wanted to clear my name (at trial).” “On January 30 I was found guilty.” “The judge sentenced me to 33-1 / 2 to 67 years.”

It is difficult to comment on these specific cases unless one has read more about those cases. But they are all examples of our guilt bargaining system. That the state could offer such a small sentence under a guilty plea, and then pass such a long sentence if the case went to trial,

Is any crime less egregious because the perpetrator agrees to a settlement with the prosecution? If the prosecutor is sure that the defendant is guilty, is he doing a disservice to society by offering the offender a very light sentence versus a much stiffer sentence after a jury conviction?

The guilty plea system is indeed an interesting aspect of criminal justice, and I think it will never be really fair to everyone or even understood.