Plea bargaining is a necessary evil

There are no two words associated with the criminal justice system that are more maligned and misunderstood than "plea bargain." Many crime victims despise those two words even more than "not guilty." Politicians from city counsel to the United States Senate deride the system because of the "underhanded" deals made with vicious criminals.
Some suggest that plea bargaining is a coercive tool used by prosecutors to avoid trial. The people who complain that the right to trial by jury is being usurped by prosecutors are the very people who've built nearly insurmountable expectations with regard to trial. Whether it's attacking the reliability of eye witness identification or demanding an unequivocal DNA connection in every case, those who advocate for trial by jury for everyone have made trial for anyone an onerous and cumbersome process.
The plea bargain, however unpopular or unseemly, is a much needed tool in the administration of justice. If it were to disappear, the criminal courts would grind to a halt.
The plea bargain is an agreement between an accused and the prosecutor. As with any negotiated agreement there is a give and take. The accused receives a reduction in the charges or a more lenient sentence. In exchange for leniency the system is saved from a costly and time consuming trial.
Why would the prosecution want to avoid a trial? Let's assume that a typical county of 100,000 people has four trial judges to handle criminal, civil and family cases. Each judge could, at best, preside over an average of four trials per month. With those assumptions the typical county court system could accommodate approximately 192 criminal trials per year. Assuming that there are a minimum of 2,000 criminal cases filed annually, what happens with the 1,808 cases that are not tried? The defendant would walk, and rightfully so, as a result of the speedy trial guarantee of the Constitution.
Compelling reasons
There are other compelling reasons to plea bargain. Prosecutors are intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of every case. There are situations where a plea to a lesser offense is better than a guilty defendant walking free. A reluctant witness or a poor witness may influence a plea negotiation.
Unfortunately, many crimes are committed in rough neighborhoods that are inhabited by rough people. Every prosecutor would be delighted to pursue crimes witnessed by nuns and alter boys, but that is not the reality of crime. Witnesses often have to deal with their own demons, such as criminal records and substance abuse. Jurors are not impressed by such witnesses.
At times a prosecutor is working with a reluctant victim. A sexual assault is not a pleasant event to relive in front of a room full of people. A child victim may be overwhelmed by fear and physically unable to testify. The accused may be clearly guilty, but a prosecutor understands the reality of "some" accountability as opposed to none.
There are many protections afforded individuals accused of a crime. At times a good intentioned police officer may cross the line. An interview that continues after an accused has requested a lawyer or the search of a residence without a search warrant can result in inadmissible evidence. The influence of such rulings can have a dramatic impact on plea negotiations.
What incentive does a defendant have to enter a plea without the benefit of a lesser sentence? The answer is none. Is it unseemly to make a deal with a criminal? You bet it is, and prosecutors, by and large, despise the practice. Sure, there are some prosecutors who avoid work by pleading out cases. Those prosecutors are soon voted out of office.
Every day justice requires a prosecutor to hold her nose when dealing with a criminal, while at the same time holding the hand of a traumatized victim.
Matthew T. Mangino is the former district attorney of Lawrence County and a featured columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. You can contact him at matthewmangino@aol.com.