The film states that the Plea bargain is a "necessary evil" in order for our justice system to function. However, we also saw how it can be detrimental to the lives of those who plea. Do you believe the benefits to society outweigh the cost to the individual? Or does it really end up costing society in the end? Please discuss, make sure you mention some of the cost and benefits in your answer. An individual is accuse for committing a crime and goes to jail. The court is going to offer a Plea bargain in which the defendant will declare guilty and the sentence will be reduce. This settlement will obligate the defendant to follow certain conditions and rules. Now, who benefits from it? According to the film The Plea, society will. Plea bargains are the best asset for the court system to keep the system flowing. The less people in jail, the less money the government has to spend. The less time with a case the less money being spent. The defendant, in other hands, may benefit or not. The film clearly shows how people’s life can be affected after pleading guilty. First, they will not have the right to have 12 people hear what really happened. Many innocent people are offered plea bargains for crimes they did not commit. The benefits from pleading guilty is that a sentence may be reduce or even revoke. The benefits to society overweigh the cost of the individuals when he/she is guilty of a crime, but it doesn’t when an individual has to declare guilty for a crime they did not commit.
If you were Kelly Jarret would you have taken the plea at either time in her case? Please discuss in detail why or why not? If yes, at which time in the case would you have taken it? (Kelly Jarret was the woman who had been in jail for 30 years.) This decision is based in whether or not she was involved in the assassination of the teenager in the gas station. Even though there was not much evidence about her being inside “her” car at the moment of the assassination, no one...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document