The concept of plea bargaining was not common practice until the nineteenth century (Langbein, 1978; Alschuler, 1979). Before that time, criminal defendants lacked representation in the court, leaving the judge to determine sentencing and punishment. Plea bargaining has become the prominent practice, with around 90% of cases, state and federal, resulting in a plea (Rabin, 1972; Lagoy, Senna, & Siegel, 1976; Alschuler, 1979; Alschuler, 1983; Scott & Stuntz, 1992; Schulhofer, 1992; Starkweather, 1992; Ross, 2006; Silveira, 2017). The concept of plea bargaining is inevitably accompanied by discretion, specifically prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutorial discretion grants prosecutors power in deciding what charges they would seek against suspects and penalties associated with the crime(s) (Welling, 1987). Sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums have affected how prosecutors are able to use their discretion.
Previous literature concerning plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion fails to discuss the difference in usage of plea bargaining between crime types (violent and nonviolent), specifically in cases dealing with multiple charges as well as the moderating effect of defendant characteristics on the relationship between plea bargaining and crime type.. The purpose of this paper is to close the previously mentioned gaps in the literature by determining if plea bargaining is utilized more often in cases against defendants who have committed violent crime or nonviolent crime and to uncover the moderating effect of defendant characteristics on the relationship between plea bargaining and crime type.
|Advisor:||Kaiser, Kimberly A.|
|Commitee:||Walker, D'Andre, Boateng, Francis, Beckman, Laura|
|School:||The University of Mississippi|
|School Location:||United States -- Mississippi|
|Source:||MAI 81/11(E), Masters Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Plea bargaining, Prosecutorial discretion, Defendant characteristics|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be