To Bargain or Not: Evaluating the Merits and Drawbacks of Plea Bargaining in Murder Trials

Introduction

“Plea bargaining is the criminal justice system’s dirty little secret.” Albert Alschuler: Plea Bargaining and Its History, Law and Society Review (1979).

Plea bargaining has long been a fundamental part of many criminal justice systems, providing a method to resolve cases efficiently. However, when applied to serious offenses such as murder, the practice becomes fraught with controversy. This analysis explores the application of plea bargaining to murder cases, comparing the situation in Nigeria to other jurisdictions such as the UK, USA, and France. It also delves into the historical origins, objectives, and philosophical underpinnings of plea bargaining, citing arguments for and against its use in murder cases.

Origins of Plea Bargaining

“Plea bargaining is rooted in pragmatism rather than principle.” John H. Langbein: Torture and Plea Bargaining (1978).

Plea bargaining emerged from a practical need to address overburdened courts, especially in common law jurisdictions like the United States. Historically, it was not based on high ideals but was a tool to ensure the system continued to function efficiently. It became formalized in the U.S. in the 19th century as court dockets expanded with rising populations and industrialization. By the 20th century, it had become a core element of the American criminal justice system, particularly as the number of criminal cases escalated.

The utilitarian philosophy behind plea bargaining—seeking the greatest good for the greatest number—provides a lens through which we can view its implementation. It offers a cost-effective means of dealing with cases, even when they involve serious crimes such as murder. However, this origin also signals a potential conflict with retributive justice ideals, which demand proportional punishment for crimes.

Objective and Philosophical Underpinnings

“Plea bargaining is not a search for truth; it is a process of negotiation.” – George Fisher: Plea Bargaining’s Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America (2003).

The primary objectives of plea bargaining include:

1. Judicial Efficiency: Courts facing overwhelming caseloads often utilize plea bargains to speed up the resolution of cases. This is particularly true in murder cases, where trials can be complex and prolonged.
2. Defendant Cooperation: Defendants may receive more lenient sentences in exchange for pleading guilty to lesser charges, sparing the state the uncertainty of a full trial.
3. Certainty of Conviction: Plea bargaining provides the prosecution with the certainty of a conviction, even if for a lesser charge, avoiding the risk of acquittal at trial.

Philosophically, plea bargaining reflects a utilitarian compromise—trading full justice for practical gains. In the context of murder, this utilitarian perspective clashes with the retributive model of justice, which argues that punishments should be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

The retributive theory—best encapsulated in Immanuel Kant’s work—holds that murder demands the highest punishment to uphold moral and legal order. Plea bargaining, when applied to murder, can be seen as undermining the fundamental principle that justice must be done and seen to be done.

Plea Bargaining in Nigeria

“Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice compromised is justice perverted.” – Oluwagbenga Adeoye: Commentary on Nigerian Legal Reforms (2017).

In Nigeria, plea bargaining is a relatively new concept, introduced through the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Initially popularized by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in corruption cases, its application to murder is rare and highly controversial.

Nigerian law, specifically under the Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code, prescribes capital punishment for murder. This creates significant legal and moral challenges when considering plea bargaining in murder cases. In practice, while it is possible for murder charges to be negotiated down to manslaughter or other lesser offenses, such agreements are typically reserved for cases with extenuating circumstances, such as self-defense or provocation.

Public perception of plea bargains in murder cases is largely negative, with many Nigerians viewing such deals as an affront to the principle of justice. In cases where plea deals are applied, the judiciary must balance the public interest in seeing justice served with the pragmatic realities of limited judicial resources.

Plea Bargaining in Other Jurisdictions

1. United States:

“In the U.S., plea bargaining is the predominant method of resolving criminal cases.” William J. Stuntz: The Collapse of American Criminal Justice (2011).

In the U.S., plea bargaining is widely used, even in murder cases. The Supreme Court, in Brady v. United States (1970), upheld the constitutionality of plea bargaining, which can involve reducing charges from first-degree murder to second-degree murder or manslaughter. Prosecutors may offer plea deals to avoid the death penalty or a lengthy trial, particularly where there is some doubt about obtaining a conviction for the most serious charge.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines provide flexibility for prosecutors to negotiate pleas. However, critics argue that in murder cases, plea bargaining can lead to disproportionate sentencing and reduce the moral gravity of the crime in the eyes of the public.

2. United Kingdom:

“Justice must be seen to be done.” – Lord Hewart: R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (1924).

In the UK, plea bargaining is far less common in murder cases. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence, and while defendants may plead guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility or provocation, it is rare for murder charges to be negotiated down. The UK legal system places a higher emphasis on proportionality and public confidence in the justice system.

That said, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has guidelines allowing for plea negotiations, primarily in cases where evidentiary issues arise, or a trial would be unduly burdensome for the victim’s family.

3. France:

“Criminal justice must ensure fairness, even when expediting cases.” – Antoine Garapon: Crimes, Courts, and Trials: The French Approach to Criminal Justice (2001).

In France, plea bargaining was introduced relatively late, and its application to serious crimes such as murder is strictly limited. The French system, rooted in civil law traditions, values the full trial as a means to uncover the truth. Even with the introduction of “comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité” (CRPC) in 2004, which allows for negotiation in minor offenses, serious crimes like murder still typically require a full trial.

In France, the principle that justice must be public and transparent outweighs the potential efficiency benefits of plea bargaining, particularly in cases involving the most serious crimes.

Arguments for and Against Plea Bargaining in Murder Cases:

Arguments For:

“Plea bargains ensure that no one gets away scot-free, even when full justice cannot be achieved.” – David Friedman: Law’s Order: What Economics Has to Do with Law and Why It Matters (2001).

1. Judicial Efficiency: Expediting murder cases through plea deals helps relieve overloaded court systems, especially when trials would be lengthy and costly.
2. Mitigating Circumstances: In some cases, plea bargains allow the court to account for mitigating factors such as self-defense, provocation, or diminished capacity, leading to fairer outcomes.
3. Victim’s Family: A quicker resolution through plea bargaining can provide closure to the victim’s family, sparing them the trauma of a prolonged trial.

Arguments Against:

“Plea bargaining in murder cases is an affront to justice. It allows killers to evade the full consequences of their actions.” – John Langbein: Torture and Plea Bargaining (1978).

1. Undermining Justice: Reducing murder charges diminishes the gravity of the offense, undermining retributive justice principles and public confidence in the legal system.
2. Erosion of Public Trust: The public may perceive plea bargains in murder cases as unjust, leading to mistrust in the legal system and concerns that wealthy or well-connected defendants receive preferential treatment.
3. Inconsistent Punishment: Plea bargains can lead to disproportionate sentencing, where defendants receive lighter sentences than their crimes merit, creating a sense of inequality in the justice system.

Conclusion:

Plea bargaining in murder cases is a contentious issue, as it involves balancing the need for efficiency with the demand for justice. In Nigeria, the practice remains rare in murder cases, partly due to public opposition and the capital nature of the crime. In contrast, countries like the U.S. have institutionalized plea bargaining even for murder, while the UK and France approach the matter with greater caution.

Ultimately, the debate over plea bargaining in murder cases raises critical questions about the purpose of justice and the role of the state in ensuring that justice is both done and seen to be done.

“A criminal trial is not a game to be resolved by players in a plea bargain; it is a search for truth and justice.” Judge Marvin E. Frankel: Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order (1973).

~Makinde Akeem Olasunkanmi, Esq.,
Principal Partner,
Global Prestige Law Firm,
Lekki- Ajah,
Lagos.
08030406120
globalprestige.extrabriefs@gmail.com

Source: loyalnigerialawyer