Negotiated Outcomes and Abbreviated Trials in Criminal Cases: Balancing Fairness and Efficiency in Three Legal Systems

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract Facing expanded criminal dockets, justice systems around the world are looking for ways to expedite proceedings and save resources while still offering credible procedures for adjudicating criminal cases. In the United States, defendants tend to face an all-or-nothing choice between two alternatives: a full trial at which all relevant evidence is presented and examined; or a plea bargain leading to a conviction without any presentation of evidence and the waiver of the defendant’s procedural rights in exchange for a reduced sentence. Even in routine misdemeanor cases, a full trial requires substantial expenditures of resources, and its procedural complexity may be out of proportion to the minor seriousness of such cases. Traditional plea bargaining, however, brings inordinate pressure to bear on defendants to plead guilty, often fails to elucidate the facts, and lacks sufficient guarantees of a fair outcome. In many jurisdictions, “intermediate” dispositions have developed, aimed at adjudicating cases both efficiently and fairly. We discuss solutions from Germany, Italy, and select U.S. states. They include bench trials and brief proceedings based on defendants’ acceptance of responsibility. After describing their scope and application, we argue that they can deliver efficiency without unduly compromising fairness, transparency, and just outcomes.