Please give a response to the following answer that a classmate wrote for the question "Read the Canadian Lawyer magazine article Why plea bargains can be a deal with the devil by Michael Spratt (2017, Jan 16). Discuss the pros and cons of plea bargaining. Do you think encouraging an increased use of plea bargaining would be an effective means of reducing caseloads in Canadian courts or do you think the practice should be limited? If so, what limitations would you propose." Make sure you respond well with enough evidence to support your reply:

Plea bargaining is the practice of negotiating an agreement between the prosecution and defence in which the defendant agrees to plead guiltywhich they might not have otherwise donein exchange for a lesser charge or reduced sentence. The practice of plea bargaining was defined in 1975 by the Law Reform Commission of Canada and has helped to reduce the burden on the Canadian criminal justice system as it saves valuable time in court and resources given that there is no need for a trial. Plea bargaining also aims to increase certainty as the Criminal Code affords judges much discretion in terms of imposing a sentence (for most cases) and therefore, accepting a plea bargain may be a way for caseworkers to minimize their potential losses by settling on a mutually agreed upon outcome. Rather than running the risk of having insufficient evidence and/or reason to convict an individual of a crime given that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, this practice benefits prosecutors as it guarantees a convictionimproving their overall conviction rates. The defendant also benefits in the sense that they receive reduced charges or less jail time and therefore, this practice operates as an essential lubricant in the justice system to keep it functioning effectively and efficientlythereby helping to ensure that other cases are dealt with in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, critics of plea bargaining have raised concerns about the potential of this practice eroding the constitutional right that guarantees an accused individual the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This may be especially problematic in cases where an individual is falsely accused of a crime, however, they believe that their best option is to take a plea deal instead of going to trial and therefore, they are ultimately convicted of a crime they did not commit. While the Criminal Code recognizes that admissions of guilt must be entirely voluntary given that a judge must be satisfied that the accused is acting under free will, there is unfortunately subtle arm twisting that happens outside of the courtroom which results in guilty pleas that are not necessarily voluntary in many cases (Spratt, 2017). In addition to this, those accused of a crime must go up against an army of fully funded prosecutors, investigators, and forensic experts which can be particularly difficult for those who do not have the financial means to pay for defence lawyers or for those who cannot take work off to go to court, case meetings, etc., and therefore, they may accept a guilty plea to simply avoid the lengthy and costly process of going to trial. Furthermore, individuals unable to make bail may plead guilty just to avoid spending time in jail waiting for their trial and therefore, it cannot be said that these admissions of guilt are truly voluntary which puts into question exactly how fair and just our criminal justice system is. While it was mentioned earlier that plea bargaining benefits defendants in the sense that they receive reduced charges, less jail time, contact with family, and so on, these types of inducements may lead to questionable guilty pleasand ultimately wrongful convictionsas accused individuals may be led to think that accepting a guilty plea is a safer bet than going to trial and risking being found guilty where they would receive a harsher sentence and/or charge. Furthermore, in some cases, the defence attorney may actually encourage their client to take the easy way out given that fighting the charges is more stressful and costly, and there are unfortunately some defence council who value a quick plea over a complicated and lengthy trial.

Although I do believe that this practice is an effective means of reducing caseloads in Canadian courts, it should be limited given that plea bargains could become a slippery slope in which innocent individuals plead guilty just to avoid going to trial. In terms of the ethical considerations of this practice, it is imperative that the accused individual is informed of all possible options available to them. Furthermore, the plea bargain should still reflect the severity of the crime committed to ensure that individuals do not accept these pleas as 'get out jail free' cards. Many critics of this practice focus on how those from disadvantaged backgrounds are unfairly targeted given that they may accept a guilty plea to avoid paying for court costs or spending time in jail waiting for trialtherefore, there should be mechanisms in place to protect the integrity of these individuals and ensure that they do not accept a guilty plea out of necessity. Another limitation that could help protect the integrity of both the accused individual and the criminal justice system is focusing the use of plea bargains on summary conviction offences as well as some hybrid offences given that these charges hold less weight and are often referred to as 'petty crime.' In contrast, indictable offences are the most serious crimes that hold severe penalties (e.g., life imprisonment) and therefore, I do not believe that these types of offences should be considered for a plea bargainat least not nearly as oftenunless the deal is relative to the crime and not a 'walk away Scott-Free' situation as well as that there is sufficient evidence to believe the accused individuals' admission of guilt. Other reforms that may help regulate the practice of plea bargaining could include the use of written guidelines that govern this practice and/or the requirement of a statement of reasons justifying plea concessions that are subject to the scrutiny of judicial review (Chilton, 1991). Overall, the introduction of plea bargains has undoubtedly helped to reduce the burden on the Canadian criminal justice system as it functions as an essential lubricant, however, there must be regulations put in place pertaining to this practice to ensure that accused individuals do not accept a plea simply out of necessity or lack of choice.