Talk:Plea bargain

message: I have started a major re-write of this. Because there are a lot of contributors, I will work on it episodically. For starters, I have re-ordered many of the paragraphs and added subject headings. I have two suggestions for organization, first is the more traditional subject heading by country, and second is to separate the article in to the systemic effects of plea bargains (ie case managment) and the individual effects (such as corecion). Manney 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Changes

message: Cut this sentence:
:Plea bargaining also helps courts and prosecutors manage caseloads.  In the United States, defendants must be brought to trial within six months of a not guilty plea.  If the trial is not held within six months, the case is dismissed.  Most jurisdictions, however, do not have enough judges, prosecutors or courtrooms to try every criminal case before a jury within six months.  By plea bargaining, prosecutors can reduce the number of cases set for trial so that cases do not get dismissed.   
This is certainly not correct throughout the United States. It appears to be a periphrasis of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 which applies only to cases prosecuted in federal court. Ellsworth 19:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy trial in the US 

message: As a longtime radio reporter who has attended hundreds of court cases, I can tell you from first-hand experience that "guilty plea" and "plea bargain" are not necessarily synonymous (though they can be). First, "plea bargain" presumes a deal has been made between prosecuting and defense attorneys (subject to the judge's approval) that says the defendant agrees to serve (jail/house arrest/probation/community service/etc.) time in exchange for the guilty plea, thereby foregoing the time and expense of a criminal trial. A "guilty plea" can (and is allowed to) be made with no such agreement, with the defendant (presumably) understanding he could receive the full maximum punishment for the crime as the result of the plea. In addition, a "plea bargain" can be reached allowing the defendant to plead "nolo contendere" (or, "no contest"), which carries the identical legal weight as a guilty plea, but is not the same (as if to say, "I'm not admitting my guilt, but I'm not denying it"). Therefore, unless I'm overruled for some reason, I'm changing guilty plea to redirect instead to plea. RadioKirk 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't get it.  If a person is erroneously charged with a crime he never committed, he should plead innocent, not bargain.--174.119.145.37 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: But, "plea bargain" is not the same as "guilty plea"

message: Plea bargaining is generally explained as helping to reduce the expense/caseload for the judicial system, or to average the probability of conviction.  As wealthy defendants are clearly more capable of prolonging a trial, and generally have a better chance of acquittal, do existing guidelines explicitly recommend more lenient plea bargain offers to wealthier defendants? Mike Serfas 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty and plea bargains 

message: I would like a source for the claim that a federal law, enacted this January prevents reductions in sentences of more than 50%. wikipedia is literally the ONLY source I can find for this claim and I have done extensive research, encluding the congressional library.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demotheses (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: See this BBC News article: "Rahman admitted the offences as part of a plea bargain agreed after the judge, his Honour Clement Goldstone QC, indicated that the defendant would only be jailed for a maximum of six years if he was to plead guilty and avoid a trial." Note the specific jail time - that seems to me as a layperson to go against what is said about England and Wales in the Wikipedia article. Could someone with better knowledge please explain? 86.132.138.84 (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be a mistake (by the judge), or a mistaken understanding by the BBC. Difficult to say without some detail. A guilty plea would ordinarily reduce sentence, though by how much will depend on when it is made. Sorry I can't enlighten more. Francis Davey (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK case? 

message: The intro is mainly about US, without even stating so. The next paragraph, "Controversy" is also mainly about US. Matt77 (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag, since the article addresses several countries from both the common law and civil law traditions, and the text of the article makes it pretty clear that the practice of plea bargaining is mostly found in the US. PaulGS (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody put the tag back, but I've removed it again for the same reason given just above. Anybody can add additional material about other countries and rework the lead if needed. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph talks about "felonies" and "misdemeanours" which are jurisdiction specific terms; refers to "state prison" (a US term if ever there was one) and assumes that theft offences are divided into two classes of seriousness as a matter of charge (again not true where I am sitting). The third paragraph is simply false for my jurisdiction (no such thing as a "no contest" plea) and the fourth paragraph assumes sufficient contact between prosecutors and defence counsel that was not my experience when I practised in crime (albeit briefly), there aren't sufficient repeat interactions to make it a plausible problem. The body is, as you say, mostly well divided up, but the lead has a strongly US feel. Francis Davey (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not improve the article with your additional insights? That's the best course of action. I'm going to ask you directly, too. Bstephens393 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not worldwide view 

message: Discussion and reference to case law about joint submission guidelines and the need for judge deference to a joint submission here. 66.18.232.148 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that tag (along with some other changes). That link is helpful; I'll refer to it. Bstephens393 (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: I noticed that in the "Controversial plea deal" section of the article, there is a rhetorical question that opens one of the paragraphs.  I am not too sure whether or not this is acceptable for wikipedia's purposes.  Please advise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcl404 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Style 

message: This section was deleted with the reason “Remove irrelevant discussion of random case”, but I have restored it giving “This was a high-profile case, and the plea deal was highly controversial” as justification. Admittedly, this is the only individual case mentioned in the article. But some individual cases are mentioned in the associated article “Plea bargaining in the United States”, so this section could have been moved there instead, as a less drastic measure.
Perhaps more important, neither article has anything to say about plea negotiations being revealed, as was done in this case. That, in and of itself, makes the Westerfield case notable and worthy of individual mention.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial plea deal

message: Will someone who understands the Italian system, AND can adequately document it, please rewrite the section on Italy. At the moment it's barely comprehensible! Tapered (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italy 

message: The link to the Spanish Wikipedia article "Colaboración_premiada" is wrong because that article is about people being investigated in Brazil cooperating with police in exchange for leniency. It is not about plea bargain as discussed in this English article. 62.117.205.219 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Spanish Wikipedia is wrong