currently plea bargins are a way for the government to flush a persons right to a trial down the toilet. the government tells the alleged criminal that they will be tried for crimes which if convicted will put them in jail for 20, and then offers the alleged criminal a plea bargin which will let him off in a year. and sadly a large number of innocent people do the math and take a plea bargin realizing that they if they are convicted for a crime they didnt do they will spend 20 years in prison and realize that taking a plea bargin even though unjust they will only spend 1 year in jail take the plea bargin. the real solution is to stop overcharing people with crimes. Original Article County's top attorney cuts off plea deals in violent crimes Suspects must face trial Michael Kiefer and Dennis Wagner The Arizona Republic Aug. 10, 2005 12:00 AM Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced Tuesday that he would crack down on plea bargains that he says are too soft on violent criminals. Thomas' new policy identifies 12 violent crimes for which defendants will not be allowed to plead guilty to lesser offenses to avoid going to trial. The list includes first- and second-degree murder, sexual assault and kidnapping. The changes fulfill a campaign pledge to make violent criminals stand trial, he said, but judges and defense attorneys were left scratching their heads as to how much the policy will change the court system, aside from possibly creating a backlog of trials. In Maricopa County, fewer than 2 percent of cases go to trial, partly because of the number that are settled, and Thomas couldn't say how many more cases will be added to the court calendar as a result of his changes. But according to statistics provided by the County Attorney's Office, in fiscal year 2003-2004, defendants in 845 of 3,010 serious felonies, including homicides, aggravated assaults, kidnappings, sex offenses and robbery, or 28 percent, pleaded guilty to lesser offenses. Those would not be allowed under the new policy. Thomas was hesitant to cite specific examples of criminals who got off easy or of prosecutors who allowed such "fraud on the public." But he felt there were too many plea agreements for sex offenses: 266 plea bargains out of 385 cases for 2003-2004. "I've long been a critic of lenient plea bargains," Thomas said. "They are a threat to public safety. They undermine public confidence in our criminal-justice system. The reason is simple. Too often the bargain in the plea bargain favors the criminal." Judge James Keppel, presiding criminal judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, said that it would take months to see if the new policy slowed down the case flow. System overload? But Robert Storrs, a defense attorney who handles a lot of homicide cases, worried that it will overload the system. "I've had innumerable first-degree murder cases where my clients have pleaded to second-degree murder," he said. "It's still a dangerous offense. My client still goes to prison (for 22 years instead of 25 years to life). My client gets some benefit, and the County Attorney's Office saves its resources and its attorney time because it can't try all the cases in the system. "If they're not going to offer me a plea on my first-degree murder cases, what do I have to lose? Nothing." Plea agreements have long been an important tool for prosecutors. Often, to give defendants incentive to avoid trial, prosecutors will allow them to plead guilty to a lesser offense than the one with which they were initially charged. For example, someone charged with second-degree murder might be allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter, which would bring a somewhat shorter prison sentence and sidestep the five to 15 weeks of a trial. Under the new rules, defendants must either plead guilty to the highest charge on the indictment or go to trial. They would still be able to make deals on lesser charges. For example, if someone were charged with a first-degree murder that took place during a bank robbery, he or she would have to plead guilty to the murder charge but could negotiate the armed-robbery and kidnapping charges that would likely be in the same indictment. If the state found difficulties in proving its case or if new evidence emerged, then the prosecutors could reconsider. Thomas' plan was inspired in part by a visit he made to Memphis, Tenn., where Shelby County District Attorney General Bill Gibbons is among a handful of prosecutors nationwide to prohibit negotiations with criminals. Gibbons' program, initiated eight years ago with a million-dollar public relations campaign, was titled, "Hard Crime Gets All the Time." Thomas dubbed his plan "Violent Crime - Hard Time." Gibbons claims he has cleaned up Memphis by putting crooks in prison for longer terms and by deterring would-be criminals who fear a tough justice system. Courts adjusted "There were complaints that this would bring the system to a grinding halt and so on," Gibbons added. "That has not happened. . . . The system has adjusted." The rule in Shelby County applies only to murder, aggravated robbery and aggravated rape in contrast to Thomas' policy, which applies to a dozen offenses. Prosecutors are allowed to reduce prison terms as an incentive for guilty pleas, but they may not drop the most serious criminal charge as part of plea negotiations. Gibbons acknowledged that no independent study has been conducted to determine the impact of his policy on sentencing, trial volumes, court congestion and other justice issues. He said the best measurement comes from FBI Uniform Crime Reports showing a dramatic drop in major felonies from 1997-2004 in Memphis. "That tells me we're certainly moving in the right direction," Gibbons said. John Fisher, a Stanford University law professor and former prosecutor, scoffed at those numbers, noting that violent crime rates have plummeted nationwide over the past decade in hundreds of communities that don't ban plea deals. If the rule reduces crime and increases efficiency, he asked, "Why don't prosecutors also stop cutting deals with white-collar criminals and other non-violent offenders?" "Obviously, that's a fraudulent claim," Fisher said. But Maricopa County Superior Court judges questioned whether there was any rash of lenient plea bargains in the first place. Is justice served? Judge Eddward Ballinger, who just completed his tenure as presiding criminal judge said, "It's not the case where they come in charged with a serious crime and they walk out with a possession of marijuana (conviction and are) guaranteed probation." Judges have an obligation to refuse to accept plea agreements that "offend justice," he said. Keppel agreed. "I just look at cases on a case-by-case basis to see if justice is being done," Keppel said. "I think a lot of cases warrant the plea agreements they get. I haven't had that many difficulties as I can see. And we do a lot of settlement conferences." Policy won't change the way Ballinger approaches settlement conferences with prosecutors and defense attorneys. "I never had a settlement conference fall apart because of policy," he said. "It'll be the same old, same old, I predict." That sentiment was echoed by Public Defender Victoria Washington. "I don't perceive a clamor of criminals saying, 'Let's go to trial,' because they've always been tough," she said.