Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 577–594 | Cite as

Negotiating About Charges and Pleas: Balancing Interests and Justice

  • Geraldine Mackenzie
  • Andrew Vincent
  • John Zeleznikow
Article
  • 463 Downloads

Abstract

There is a worldwide movement towards alternatives to judicial decision-making for legal disputes. In the domain of criminal sentencing, in Western countries more than 95 % of cases are guilty pleas, with many being decided by negotiations over charges and pleas, rather than a decision being made after a judge or jury has heard all relevant evidence in a trial. Because decisions are being made, and people incarcerated on the basis of negotiations, it is important that such negotiations be just and fair. In this paper we discuss issues of fairness in plea-bargaining and how we can develop systems to support the process of plea and charge negotiation. We discuss how we are using Toulmin’s theory of argumentation and Lodder and Zeleznikow’s model of online dispute resolution to develop just plea bargaining systems. A specific investigation of the process of charge mentions is discussed.

Keywords

Plea bargaining Sentencing Dispute resolution  Justice 

References

  1. Adelstein R, Miceli TJ (2001) Toward a comparative economics of plea bargaining. Eur J Law Econ 11(1):47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alschuler AW (1979) Plea bargaining and its history. Law Soc Rev 13:211–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagaric M, Brebner J (2002) The solution to the dilemma presented by the guilty plea discount: the qualified guilty plea—’I’m pleading guilty only because of the discount..’. Int J Sociol Law 30(1):51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin J, Mcconville M (1977) Negotiated justice: pressures to plead guilty. Martin Robertson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellucci E, Zeleznikow J (2006) Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family_Winner system. J Artif Intell Law 13(2):233–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibas S (2004) Plea bargaining outside the shadow of the trial. Harv Law Rev 117:2464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blum G (2007) Islands of agreement: managing enduring armed rivalries. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Colella S (2004) “Guilty, your honor”: the direct and collateral consequences of guilty pleas and the courts that consistently interpret them. Whittier Law Rev 26:305Google Scholar
  9. Condliffe P (2008) Conflict management: a practical guide, 3rd edn. Lexis Nexis, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowdery N (2005) Creative sentencing and plea bargaining: does it happen and what are the results?. LawAsia Biennial Conference, LawAsia Downunder 2Google Scholar
  11. De Vries B, Leenes R, Zeleznikow J (2005) Fundamentals of providing negotiation advice online: the need for developing BATNAs. In: Proceedings of second international ODR workshop. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmjegen, pp 59–67Google Scholar
  12. Field R (2005) Federal family law reform in 2005: the problems and pitfalls for women and children of an increased emphasis on post-separation informal dispute resolution. QUT Law Justice J 5(1):28Google Scholar
  13. Fisher R, Ury W (1981) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Haughton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Frase RS (2005) State sentencing guidelines: diversity, consensus, and unresolved policy issues. Columbia Law Rev 105:1190–2409Google Scholar
  15. Freiberg A (2007) Non-adversarial approaches to criminal justice. J Judic Adm 17:1–19Google Scholar
  16. Gazal-Ayal O (2006) Partial ban on plea bargains. Cardozo Law Rev 27:2295–2349Google Scholar
  17. Gilbert M (2006) Kristallnacht: prelude to destruction. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall MJJ, Calabro D, Sourdin T, Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (2005) Supporting discretionary decision making with information technology: a case study in the criminal sentencing jurisdiction. Univ Ott Law Technol J 2(1):1–36Google Scholar
  19. Henham R (1999) Bargain justice or justice denied? Sentencing discounts and the criminal process. Mod Law Rev 62:515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollander-Blumoff R (1997) Getting to “Guilty”: plea bargaining as negotiation. Harv Negot Law Rev 2:115–148Google Scholar
  21. Langer M (2007) Rethinking plea bargaining: the practice and reform of prosecutorial adjudiction in Amercian criminal procedure. Am J Crim Law 33:223–299Google Scholar
  22. Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lodder A, Zeleznikow J (2005) Developing an online dispute resolution environment: dialogue tools and negotiation support systems in a three-step model. Harv Negot Law Rev 10:287–338Google Scholar
  24. Lodder A, Zeleznikow J (2010) Enhanced dispute resolution through the use of information technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma Y (2002) Prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining in the United States, France, Germany and Italy: a comparative perspective. Int Crim Justice Rev 12:22–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mack K, Anleu SR (1995) Pleading guilty: issues and practices. Aust Inst Judicial Adm 136Google Scholar
  27. Mack K, Anleu SR (1996) Guilty pleas: discussions and agreements. J Judicial Adm 6(8):9Google Scholar
  28. Mack K, Anleu SR (1997) Sentence discount for a guilty plea: time for a new look. Flinders J Law Reform 1:123Google Scholar
  29. Mack K, Anleu SR (1998) Reform of pre-trial criminal procedure: guilty pleas. Crim Law J 22:263Google Scholar
  30. Mackenzie G (2002) Achieving consistency in sentencing: moving to best practice? Univ Qld Law J 74:22Google Scholar
  31. Mackenzie G (2007) The guilty plea discount: does pragmatism win over proportionality and principle. South Cross Univ Law Rev 11:205Google Scholar
  32. McFarland DLREW (2004) Access to justice. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Mnookin R (2003) When not to negotiate. Univ Colo Law Rev 74:1077–1107Google Scholar
  34. Mnookin R, Kornhauser L (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law J 88:950–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’hear MM, Schneider AK (2007) Dispute resolution in criminal law. Marquette Law Rev 91:1–8Google Scholar
  36. Pierani M (2005) ODR Developments under a consumer perspective: the italian case. In: Proceedings of second international ODR workshop, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmjegen, Netherlands. pp 43–45Google Scholar
  37. Orwell G (1945) Animal farm. Secker and Warburg, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Reitz KR (2001) The disassembly and reassembly of U.S. sentencing practices. In: Tonry M, Frase RS (eds) Sentencing and sanctions in western countries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Schild U, Zeleznikow (2008) The three laws of robotics revisited. Intern J Intell Syst Technol Appl 4(3–4):254–270Google Scholar
  40. Seifman R, Freiberg A (2001) Plea bargaining in Victoria: the role of counsel. Crim Law J 25:64Google Scholar
  41. Stuntz WJ (2004) Plea bargaining and criminal law’s disappearing shadow. Harv Law Rev 117:2548–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (2001) Copyright regulation with argumentation agents. Inf Commun Technol Law 10(1):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J (2005) Knowledge discovery from legal databases, vol 69. Springer Law and Philosophy Library, Dordrecht. ISBN:1-4020-3036-3Google Scholar
  44. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Gawler M, Lewis B (1999) A hybrid-neural approach to the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia. Artif Intell Law 7(2–3):153–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tata C (2000) Resolute ambivalence: why judiciaries do not institutionalise their decision support systems. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 14:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor AJP (1961) The origins of the second world war. Gale, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Thompson SG (2005) Sentencing guidelines in the US: a primer. Reform 86:45–48Google Scholar
  48. Tor A, Gazal-Ayal O, Garcia S (2006) Fairness and the willingness to accept plea bargain offers. SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880506&rec=1&srcabs=560401. Last Accessed 28 Oct 2008
  49. Törnblom K, Vermunt R (eds) (2007) Distributive and procedural justice: research and social applications. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  50. Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Ward T, Birgden A (2007) Human rights and correctional clinical practice. Aggress Violent Behav 12(6):628–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wright R (2005) Prosecutorial guidelines and the new terrain in New Jersey. Penn State Law Rev 109:1087–1105Google Scholar
  53. Wright R, Miller M (2002) The screening/bargaining tradeoff. Stanf Law Rev 55:29–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright R, Miller M (2003) Honesty and opacity in charge bargains. Stanf Law Review 55:1409–1417Google Scholar
  55. Vincent A, Zeleznikow J (2005) Towards a plea bargaining decision support system for legal aid lawyers in Victorian lower courts. In: Proceedings of second international ODR workshop. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmjegen, pp 47–58Google Scholar
  56. Yearwood J, Stranierii A (1999) The integration of retrieval, reasoning and drafting for refugee law: a third generation legal knowledge based system. In: Proceedings of seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law. ACM, Oslo, pp 117–126Google Scholar
  57. Zeleznikow J (2003) An Australian perspective on research and development required for the construction of applied legal decision support systems. Artif Intell Law 10:237–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zeleznikow J (2006) Using Toulmin argumentation to support dispute settlement in discretionary domains. In: Hitchcock D, Verheij B (eds) Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 261–272Google Scholar
  59. Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2006) Family_Mediator—adding notions of fairness to those of interests. In: Proceedings of nineteenth international conference on legal knowledge based system. IOS Publications, Amsterdam, pp 121–130Google Scholar
  60. Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E, Vincent A, Mackenzie G (2007) Bargaining in the shadow of a trial: adding notions of fairness to interest-based negotiation in legal domains. In: Kersten G, Rios J, Chen E (eds)Proceedings of group decision and negotiation meeting 2007, vol II. Concordia University, Montreal, 978-0-88947-454-3, pp 451–475Google Scholar
  61. Zeleznikow J, Hunter D (1994) Building intelligent legal information systems: knowledge representation and reasoning in law. Computer/Law series, vol. 13. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeleznikow J, Vincent A (2007) Providing decision support for negotiation: the need for adding notions of fairness to those of interests. Univ Toledo Law Rev 38:101–143Google Scholar
  63. Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2012) Legal fairness in alternative dispute resolution processes – implications for research and teaching. Australas Disput Resolut J 23(4):265–273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geraldine Mackenzie
    • 1
  • Andrew Vincent
    • 2
  • John Zeleznikow
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern Cross UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  2. 2.College of Business, Victoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations