
Punishment Without Trial
Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal
Failed to add items
Add to Cart failed.
Add to Wish List failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
$0.00 for first 30 days
Buy for $17.19
No default payment method selected.
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
-
Narrated by:
-
Christina Delaine
When Americans think of the criminal justice system, the image that comes to mind is a trial-a standard courtroom scene with a defendant, attorneys, a judge, and most important, a jury. It's a fair assumption.
But in Punishment Without Trial: Why Plea Bargaining Is a Bad Deal, University of North Carolina law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick shows that the popular conception of a jury trial couldn't be further from reality. That bedrock constitutional right has all but disappeared thanks to the unstoppable march of plea bargaining, which began to take hold during Prohibition and has skyrocketed since 1971, when it was affirmed as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Nearly every aspect of our criminal justice system encourages defendants-whether innocent or guilty-to take a plea deal. Punishment Without Trial showcases how plea bargaining has undermined justice at every turn and across socioeconomic and racial divides. It forces the hand of lawyers, judges, and defendants, turning our legal system into a ruthlessly efficient mass incarceration machine that is dogging our jails and punishing citizens. Professor Hessick makes the case against plea bargaining as she illustrates how it has damaged our justice system while presenting an innovative set of reforms for how we can fix it.
©2021 Carissa Byrne Hessick (P)2021 TantorListeners also enjoyed...




















People who viewed this also viewed...

very interesting and informative
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
If I was going to make any criticism of this book it would be that there hasn't been anyone. including the author who has explored the consequences of so called "pre-trial monitoring" and how reporting to these programs is often a requirement of bail/bond and can often be more stringent and intrusive than even probation and parole. though you are still technically innocent you must report as much as 1-2 times per week during business hours which means time off of work, you are subjected to monitoring by agencies I have nicknamed "The Peelice" (because their primary function is pee testing you) for constant UA drug tests which I have personally found humiliating. The procedure in Milwaukee county requires you to pull your pants to your knees, pull your shit up to your breasts then spin in a complete circle and then hold one hand up as you take the cup with the other and then try to urinate. If that is not enough then imagine adding to that a worker who feels she needs to squat down about 3 feet in from of you and stare at your genitals as you try to go! If you refuse or can't go it is considered a failure of a UA and for any failed tests (as well as a variety of other violations of the programs rules) you are immediately dragged before your judge who must now squeeze you into an already overflowing schedule to explain yourself and your "bail jumping" to them. You cannot predict what is going to happen. Could be jail. could be a demand for more bail. could be some other punishment ordered or it could be nothing. That's just it is that you never know so you feel as though your life is hanging on by a thread every time you have to report to these people. It makes many people take plea deals in the same way being in jail pretrial does. It is often used by prosecutors as a tool to press for a plea deal because they know people with certain mental health or addiction issues of those who live in certain areas where stop and frisks are used regularly that there is good chance someone with these circumstances will make a mistake and they can then threaten felony bail jumping charges get added on which they can easily get a conviction on if the defendant even the innocent do not agree to the plea they are being offered. It's a common everyday occurrence. These pretrial monitoring programs often treat the innocent worse than a PO does someone who has plead guilty, They shouldn't be allowed to demand so much from people who have to be presumed innocent! Check stubs, bank statements, medical information including any and all RX medication to name a few things all becomes part of your criminal case information! YOUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS JAIL! you cannot refuse these programs if you want to get out. So I would like the author or future authors to please investigate pretrial monitoring because as I have pointed out here it's a serious part of the problem!
Near perfect look at a broken even corrupt system!
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Good Introduction
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
A must read
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
Important to know about our justice system
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
To be fair, there were several ideas that I thought were good suggestions. Bail reform and the two prosecutors she discussed towards the end of the chapter prior to the conclusion. However, the author simply could not fathom/adjust her hypothesis: trials is the constitutional right guaranteed and trials disrupt that. Even though she was unable to explain how a trial guarantees more Justice when we take into account jury biases, underfunded public defenders representing, unfair judges, etc. She recognized the ideas by progressive prosecutors dismissing and presenting fair pleas as the best idea, but just could not actually adjust the narrative in the end.
Lastly, just like not good writing in general. Her writing makes me believe she came into this with stories she wanted to share and was never able to actually figure out how they fit/affected the system so she just threw them in anyways. Example being the girl that got a deferred sentence but no one (the author included because she didn’t know what it is and didn’t. Take time to find out for defendant) explained what that meant to the defendant and it was a very good outcome but if the defendant violated the deferred sentencing she would be sentenced. I fully expected a story where the girl was negatively impacted by getting a deferred sentence but the author just shared the story…. Just because? No actual pros or cons attached to her personal narrative.
If you want to know best about what punishment without trial defendants in our country have, read The New Jim Crow, follow a public defender on Twitter, or just talk to someone that agreed to an unfair plea they took- all are more credible than this book.
Exactly what to expect from a non-practicing academic
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.