should nature of crime affect the defendant's opportunity to plea bargain?
142607
Absolutely!  We don't want a major offender out on the street with a comparatively minor conviction.
500104
No, you already plead guilty.  Maybe if there was a technicality or something.  Ask a lawyer, they have free consultations and some will answer you on the phone.
862220
Another one of the posters had it right when they sprinkled their answers with dollar signs. It is absolutely about how much money you have and how high priced of an attorney you can afford to hire. For example, there was that real estate tycoon (can't remember his name) who killed either 1-2 people. He hired that famous Wyoming lawyer and got off. Do you think a guy from the hood, only being able to afford a public defender, is going to get the same justice?\n\nHaving seen the criminal justice system in action  this is what I see: The person commits the offense, the DA piles the charges, knowing that all those charges won't stick, but they want to get it down to the offense in which the person did commit will stick. The plea bargain goes into play in which the defendant, facing months or years more in jail than they deserve, pleas to the offense and gets the appropriate punishment.\n\nEveryone is so against plea bargaining, but if it were banned and all defendants went through a jury trial, the criminal justice system would absolutely ground to a halt! There is no way the system could handle that many cases. The system wants plea bargains, because it makes the job easier. It's also enormously expensive to run jury trials for every single case presented before the court. \n\nObviously, there have been innocent people convicted. The Innocence Project has freed nearly 150 people jailed by eyewitness identification or police interrogation, only to prove usually years later through DNA that the person isn't guilty. There are undoubtedly many more people in prison for crimes they didn't commit..\n\nThere are also undoubtedly people in prison for crimes they pled guilty to, but are actually not guilty of the crime in which they pled guilty. (I know of one such person, although they are out of prison now.) Here is how this is played out - the defendant must rely on a public defender, the DA piles charges, they negotiate down, take a guilty plea with the promise of much reduced sentences, but life if found guilty at trial by jury. The person tries to cut their losses by pleading guilty so they're not stuck in prison for life.
927493
Oh yes !!!!! Do the crime do the time ........................... you could set up different punishments for different crimes ..... Theft ..... once - one hand off ..... twice - other hand off (wouldn't do it again) Think about rape !!!!!!!
737505
As the defendant is already on bail for another offence of violence, if he intends to plead guilty to that offence, the smart thing to do would be to bring the matter forward so that he can enter his guilty plea and be sentenced for both these offences together. If he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, there is a good chance of being given concurrent sentences.  \n\nIf he is given a community sentence now and then brought back to court for the assault on the police officer, then in practical terms the court would find itself unable to impose a prison sentence for the assault on a police officer, as it is bad sentencing policy to send someone to prison while he is serving such a sentence unless he has been brought to court for being in breach of the terms of his sentence. Similarly, if he is sentenced to prison now, he would not be available for a community service in relation to the other offence and a term of imprisonment would have to be imposed for that too.\n\nIn view of what the magistrates have indicated, they would have to be persuaded very hard not to impose a prison sentence.  I think it's highly likely.
1028519
There is no general answer.  It depends on the jurisdiction, and then it depends on the particular judge what to do at sentencing time.  Most states take into consideration now whether this is a first offense or repeat offender, the property taken and whether anyone was actually hurt in the theft and so forth.
104809
It doesn’t seem fair does it. I went through the criminal justice system last year around this time.\n\nYou can get a defense, your public defender will have you plea bargain the case out, only about 2% of cases ever make it to trial.\n\nDepending on your crime, and your mental state at the time of the arrest, the victim, and the case itself will all be key factors.\n\nIt is fair, if the public defender gives any information without your consent to anyone, including but not limited to judges, clerks, prosecutors, etc. it is a violation of the attorney client confidentiality agreement.\n\nBest wishes...and if you have the money or can get the money, fight it, call around and get the best attorney you can afford, nobody likes a bad record.
1084165
If insanity is not enough to affect the real guilt of a person, then it should be reasonable to execute children who get hold of guns and accidentally kill a playmate.  If murder charges are not only meant to punish those who INTEND to harm others, then any driver who survives a car accident with fatalities should also be charged with murder.  On the other hand, religious and philosophical leaders for thousands of years have laid out arguments for why it is only really fair to punish people who do bad things because they intend to do bad things.\n\nThe insanity plea basically says that a person suffers from a mental illness that made it impossible for the person to truly intend to do the harm they did.  It doesn't deny that the harm was done, and it isn't "getting off scott-free", as the ignorant often claim.  To make the plea, you have to basically plead insane, which means you agree to let the state commit you to an insane asylum -- which is generally not a terrific place to be.  While many homicide convictions carry sentences of just a few years, commitment for insanity is by its nature indefinite and may continue for the entirety of the person's life -- even if they might have walked out of jail years earlier had it not been for their "cop out".\n\nMany of the respondents here sound like a "pitchfork and torch" brigade, ignorant, hasty for revenge (even against imaginary transgressors), and with little real thought for what justice is all about.  It's probably a good thing they're also the people who skip jury duty.
168764
That depends on the crime. Different crimes have different statutes of limitations, and those all vary by the jurisdiction. Some do not have limits, such as murder.
876661
Any two facts?\n\n1)  Plea bargaining takes place when a prosecutor offers to pursue charges for a lesser crime than he feels he can prosecute in exchange for a guilty or nolo contondere plea.  \n\n2)  Once a guilty plea is entered and accepted, the prosecutor cannot then retry the person on the same facts for the more serious crime.
759541
I don't think you can accept a plea bargain and then withdraw it at a later date.  I would think you just need to hire new counsel and file an appeal....bottom line...I'm not an attorney but have worked for D.A. and several attorneys.
201312
Discuss it with your local district attorney - if you bring the values to the prosecutor's attention, it may influence how the charges are filed.
1101183
that's the defendant's choice.\n\nThe defendant is the ONLY person who can make that determination (this rule applies ONLY for felonies).
426686
It depends on what state you live in, what sort of plea bargain you work out, your criminal history, etc.
677690
Depends on the type of crime.
693678
It would depend on the individual case. If the police and/or prosecution had planted evidence or hid evidence that would have proved someones innocence, then deliberately and knowingly prosecuted an innocent man, then yes, under those circumstances I feel both criminal and civil charges should be brought against the "People". But unfortunately our law system is not perfect and even when everything is done by the book, sometimes an innocent person is found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. In those cases you cannot blame the prosecution or law enforcement, and it would be unfair to penalize them.
597760
The answer is yes.  To commit a crime, two separate elements must be met.  First, the actus reus - or act.  You must do something that is prohibited.  Damaging someone's property is illegal (if nothing else it is a trespass).  Second, is the mens rea, or the guilty mind.  Every crime carries with it a different level of intent needed in order to be guilty.  For example for capital murder, the level of intent required is very high.  The murderer must have premeditated the crime and intended to cause the death of his victim.  For damaging someone's property, it is likely enough that you were simply negligent.  Anything more, such as intentionally damaging the property would also suffice.  So from your example, and assuming in the hypothetical that you intended, or at least were negligent in causing the damage then you have committed a crime.  It is absolutely irrevelevant whether anyone saw you do it.  Of course if there is no proof, then it's difficult to convict you - but that's not the question.  Did you commit a crime?  Absolutely.