Episode 10 - Plea Bargains, Or The Lack Thereof

I think this episode is very interesting in that it brings up many of the inadequacies in Christina Gutierrez’s handling of the defense. What struck me the most about this episode, however, is how Adnan requested multiple plea bargains, but Gutierrez never organized that for him. 

Though Adnan continues to claim his innocence, his willingness to admit guilt interested me. Adnan has been claiming his innocence for 15 years, and though he stays true to this belief, he does admit that throughout these times, there were times when he was scared. Adnan tells Koenig that he though people would plead guilty only if you are innocent. He would later on realize that the odds are so stacked against you, especially in first-degree murder cases, that taking a plea bargain is your best bet to a less terrible life thereafter. What really struck me as alarming and yet realistic in terms of our justice system is when Adnan stated, “No one really beats cases.” His statement almost makes the comparison that individuals accused of crimes are almost trying to win the justice system over, that there is a winner and loser involved. Compare this to the idea of justice being utilized to ultimately find the truth, not claiming victory over someone else’s loss.

I decided to look up some articles about plea bargains, because I wasn’t too familiar with them, and the whole “innocent-pleading-guilty” concept is intriguing yet also sad. In an article by Jed S. Rakoff titled “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty” (published in November of 2014), Rakoff highlights some important facts about plea bargains in the United States: 

"In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial. The plea bargains largely determined the sentences imposed.” He continues: While corresponding statistics for the fifty states combined are not available, it is a rare state where plea bargains do not similarly account for the resolution of at least 95 percent of the felony cases that are not dismissed; and again, the plea bargains usually determine the sentences, sometimes as a matter of law and otherwise as a matter of practice. Furthermore, in both the state and federal systems, the power to determine the terms of the plea bargain is, as a practical matter, lodged largely in the prosecutor, with the defense counsel having little say and the judge even less.”

This whole idea of the prosecutor having most of the power in terms of the plea bargain seems very interesting. In another article, Natasha Vargas-Cooper summarizes Rakoff’s ideas about what makes our justice system so poor. She highlights three bullet points: 1) By embracing the increasingly-popular plea bargain. 2) Through the use of mandatory minimum sentences, and 3) Via the unfettered rise of prosecutorial power.

Do you see any connection between these points, this episode, and the prosecutor’s power in this case?