2008 Woodie Awards
Vote Absentee
Issue Date: 10/8/07
Plea bargains leave victims in the cold
Criminal bargaining expedites trial, but at the expense of a safe society
By Wayland Blue
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In spring 2006, Scott Lee Sepulveda and six friends were arrested for an alleged conspiracy to murder two bookies, and an associate who informed the authorities of the plot.
Sepulveda was charged with several offenses, including three counts of attempted murder and conspiracy, then in an unrelated case he was charged and admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old girl after giving her alcohol.
Sepulveda and his associates took a plea bargain, which would allow them up to eight-year sentences as opposed to life imprisonment, which would have likely been the punishment had they been found guilty.
The conditions of the plea bargain for Sepulveda were that he would have to admit to conspiracy, but not to the specifics of the conspiracy. In addition, he would have to register as a gang offender, although he would not have to register as a sex offender.
This case brings to light important issues relating to the legal system and justice administration. An important question to ask in this case and all cases involving plea bargains is, what is the point of offering a plea bargain anyway?
It seems that the reason for offering plea bargains is to make the process of convicting criminals go faster. Despite the fact that having a trial go fast may be a good thing, it is important to keep in mind that by offering plea bargains, criminals are being rewarded.
This has the potential to bring out heated emotions. Josh Gregson, one of the bookies, said in the NCTimes.com article, "we are extremely disappointed with the plea deal, and very frustrated over it."
It is obvious that Gregson would be upset that people who he thought were trying to kill him would avoid punishment so easily. However, on a more objective level, the verdict does seem to have serious logical problems.
Was getting these men convicted for a few of the charges worth allowing them to go free on all the other ones? In this case, it is illogical.
It does not seem reasonable that the charge of conspiracy should stand while the charges of attempted murder are dropped. This is especially significant because the object of the conspiracy was the attempted murders.
Sepulveda was charged with several offenses, including three counts of attempted murder and conspiracy, then in an unrelated case he was charged and admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old girl after giving her alcohol.
Sepulveda and his associates took a plea bargain, which would allow them up to eight-year sentences as opposed to life imprisonment, which would have likely been the punishment had they been found guilty.
The conditions of the plea bargain for Sepulveda were that he would have to admit to conspiracy, but not to the specifics of the conspiracy. In addition, he would have to register as a gang offender, although he would not have to register as a sex offender.
This case brings to light important issues relating to the legal system and justice administration. An important question to ask in this case and all cases involving plea bargains is, what is the point of offering a plea bargain anyway?
It seems that the reason for offering plea bargains is to make the process of convicting criminals go faster. Despite the fact that having a trial go fast may be a good thing, it is important to keep in mind that by offering plea bargains, criminals are being rewarded.
This has the potential to bring out heated emotions. Josh Gregson, one of the bookies, said in the NCTimes.com article, "we are extremely disappointed with the plea deal, and very frustrated over it."
It is obvious that Gregson would be upset that people who he thought were trying to kill him would avoid punishment so easily. However, on a more objective level, the verdict does seem to have serious logical problems.
Was getting these men convicted for a few of the charges worth allowing them to go free on all the other ones? In this case, it is illogical.
It does not seem reasonable that the charge of conspiracy should stand while the charges of attempted murder are dropped. This is especially significant because the object of the conspiracy was the attempted murders.
Be the first to comment on this story