The Relationship between Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness and Support for Plea-Bargaining Practices in Israel: A Factorial-Survey Approach

Abstract

The settlement of criminal cases through bargained guilty pleas has been the focus of increasing research interest over the past few decades. Generally, a plea bargain is reached through an informal process of negotiation in which the prosecutor and the defense counsel reach an outof-court settlement. In such a settlement, the defendant admits guilt in return for some concession on the part of the prosecution (e.g., reducing the number and/or seriousness of the original criminal charges, or recommending a more lenient punishment than would otherwise be expected). From the prosecutor's viewpoint, plea bargaining results in speedy and certain conviction, especially when the evidence against the defendant is somewhat weak, thereby avoiding the possibility of acquittal in court, not to mention cost of the trial in terms of time and resources. From the judge's point of view, plea bargaining reduces the workload of the court. Research suggests that benefits such as these have led to increasing resort to plea bargaining. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, a vast majority of criminal defendants plead guilty after negotiation between the parties as a matter of course.'