Plea agreements are a good thing, prosecutors say. Here’s why.
Published at | Updated at
BLACKFOOT — The commenters on EastIdahoNews.com seldom agree on anything. But on one issue, they are nearly united: They don’t like plea agreements for sex crimes.
A plea agreement, also known as a plea bargain or plea deal, happens when the defendant and prosecution agree to resolve a case without going to trial.
The defendant will often agree to plead guilty to a crime, and the prosecutor will agree to provide a benefit, such as dropping other charges or recommending a shorter sentence to the judge.
According to the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, 90 to 95 percent of national cases result in plea agreements.
Because they are so common, community members may see plea agreements as cop-outs or get-out-of-jail-free cards. But according to one local prosecutor, the agreements are a good thing.
Why plea agreements?
Bingham County Prosecutor Ryan Jolley quotes his mentor, Jefferson County Magistrate Judge Danny Clark, a former prosecutor, saying, “The only bad thing about a plea agreement is a bad plea agreement.”
“I can do almost an unlimited number of things with a plea agreement,” Jolley says. “I can reduce charges and have them plead for another charge. I can have them plead as charged with a sentencing recommendation. There is just a wide range of things that I can do under a plea agreement.”
The only way to have a lousy plea agreement is to create one you believe will have a bad outcome, he says.
Jolley often deals with child sex crimes, which are unfortunately common, and says plea agreements are sometimes the only way to get justice for a young victim of sexual assault.
“No. 1, it’s going to require the defendant to come into court and accept responsibility for what he did,” says Jolley. “That starts the closure process for a victim.”
Second, it keeps the victim from having to rehash their trauma in front of countless strangers – and their alleged abuser.
“It’s going to avoid the need for you to come in and testify as a victim at a preliminary hearing and testify again at a jury trial,” says Jolley. “You will avoid re-victimization as a victim if we’re able to reach a plea agreement.”
It also avoids the appeals process after a jury trial, which can be a years-long process – drawing out the trauma over an unnecessary period.
“You get a more definite closure with a plea agreement, especially if there’s an agreement for what the sentence should be,” says Jolley. “Even if the defendant doesn’t get the same sentence that’s outlined in the plea agreement, it’s going to be much harder for that defendant to try and appeal that sentence and say, ‘Hey, I want to go back and have a trial now,’ or, ‘I want to go back and do this, that or the other.’”
Plea agreements can also avoid the stress and trauma of knowing that your credibility is in the hands of 12 strangers — and just one can change the entire narrative.
“You don’t have to put the case before a jury and run the risk that just one person out of those 12 people on a felony case decides that I have not met my burden of proof,” says Jolley. “When we talk about innocent until proven guilty, sometimes we forget how significant that is. The way the court system is designed, you get the benefit of the doubt as the defendant. The tie goes to the runner, and in this case, it’s the defendant.”
For cases of child sexual abuse, victims are often very young, says Jolley.
“Another thing for people to remember is just because a child comes forward and discloses sexual abuse, that doesn’t mean they’re going to be able to remember that when they’re on the stand testifying,” says Jolley. “That’s really hard for a child to do. We’re putting an awful big burden on these kids.”
He often reads comments on sex crime articles that express frustration when sex offenders are sent on riders or get probation. But during his nearly seven years as a prosecutor, Jolley says he has never recommended a rider for a sex abuse case.
When deciding how to proceed with a case as difficult as child sexual abuse, Jolley says he never moves to resolve without first discussing with the family, who often asks for a plea agreement to save their children from testifying.
“One thing that also I want to make sure people understand, I do not resolve any of these cases without consulting with the family about my plea agreement,” says Jolley. “In a lot of these cases, the family members are saying, ‘Please don’t make my child go through this. They’ve been through enough. We just want him to be held accountable. Get the justice that you can get us.'”
After the court process is done, Jolley says victims are often retraumatized anyway by the reaction to the outcome by the community – who usually doesn’t understand the work it took to get there.
“I can’t imagine being in their situation as a victim or being in that situation as a family where you’ve met with me as the prosecutor, you’ve been in court, I’ve walked the victim through the process and why I feel like this is an appropriate plea agreement,” says Jolley. “They get into a place where I feel like they’re comfortable with what’s happening, and then they walk out into the community and the community is saying, ‘Well, you didn’t get enough. You haven’t had justice.’”
As an elected prosecutor, Jolley says he consistently tries to inform the public of every official decision he makes, but he worries people are often misinformed on the internet.
“It’s important for the community to know that I’m doing my job, that I’m doing a good job, that I’m getting accountability,” says Jolley. “Everybody wants to feel like they’re safe in their community. If misinformed information is getting disseminated to the public, they may not feel safe, they may not feel like people are doing their job, and they’ll just get frustrated with the government and feel like the voices of victims are never heard.”
Where plea agreements fall short
However, there are also some concerns when it comes to plea agreements.
According to a paper published at Cornell Law School some argue that plea bargains can “allow defendants to shirk responsibility for the crimes they have committed.”
In August, a Bingham County man, Tommy Ray Larkin, was sentenced to a minimum of three years and a maximum of 10 years in prison for felony vehicular manslaughter.
Larkin accepted the terms of a plea agreement where he pleaded guilty in return for the prosecution agreeing to recommend a sentence of a minimum of three years and a maximum of 10 years in prison.
In an unusual move, District Judge Darren Simpson indicated that he wished he could’ve sentenced him to a lengthier amount of time.
“There are two significant aggravating factors in this case. No. 1, a man lost his life. No. 2, you have three prior DUIs. Granted, the last few you’ve had was a significant period of time ago,” Simpson said. “When someone loses their life, and the maximum sentence is 10 years, it blows my mind a little.”
A study by the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Consortium found that prosecutors often also cite lack of resources as a reason for deciding to go with a plea agreement.
“More often than not, prosecutors cited lack of resources to more fully and adequately pursue cases toward the jury state, and time and time again reiterated that most cases were resolved through plea negotiations,” says the study.
At the end of the day, each case depends on the victim, how they want to define their own justice and how prosecutors can get them there.
“The longer you’re doing these cases, you see the impact and the toll it has on those people who are in the trenches working on them,” says Jolley. “Every single one of these victims, I remember them.”