Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:55:53.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perspectives on Plea Bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1979

Malcolm M. Feeley
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Plea bargaining is finally coming to be recognized for the important institution it is. There is a rapidly growing body of research that describes its variations, reports on its impact, and discusses its implications. Despite these advances, however, much of this literature is fragmented, anchored in separate disciplines, and often lacking in broad context and historical perspective. And although much of the empirical research on plea bargaining has a distinct reform orientation or offers important implications for reform, this is often implicit or presented in a way that is neither convincing nor useful to practitioners.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Winter 1979 , pp. 199 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Law and Society Association.

References

ALSCHULER, Albert W. (1978) “Sentencing Reform and Prosecutorial Power: A Critique of Recent Proposals for ‘Fixed’ and ‘Presumptive’ Sentencing,” 126 University of Pennsylvanis Law Review 550.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, Abraham S. (1967) Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
COLE, George F. (1970) “The Decision to Prosecute,” 4 Law & Society Review 331.Google Scholar
EISENBERG, Melvin A. (1976) “Private Ordering through Negotiation: Dispute Settlement and Rule Making,” 89 Harvard Law Review 376.Google Scholar
EISENSTEIN, James and Herbert, JACOB (1977) Felony Justice. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
FEELEY, Malcolm M. (1975) “The Effects of Heavy Caseloads.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, September 5.Google Scholar
FEELEY, Malcolm M. (1979) The Process is the Punishment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
FINKELSTEIN, Michael O. (1975) “A Statistical Analysis of Guilty Plea Practices in Federal Courts,” 89 Harvard Law Review 293.Google Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, Abraham S. (1974) “Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in American Criminal Procedure,” 26 Stanford Law Review 1009.Google Scholar
GOLDSTEIN, Abraham S. and Marvin, MARCUS (1977) “The Myth of Judicial Supervision in Three ‘Inquisitorial’ Systems: France, Italy, and Germany,” 87 Yale Law Journal 240.Google Scholar
HEUMANN, Milton (1975) “A Note on Plea Bargaining and Case Pressure,” 9 Law & Society Review 515.Google Scholar
HEUMANN, Milton (1978) Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LANGBEIN, John H. (1974) “Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany,” 41 University of Chicago Law Review 439.Google Scholar
LANGBEIN, John H. and Lloyd, WEINREB (1978) “Continental Criminal Procedure: ‘Myth’ and Reality,” 87 Yale Law Journal 1549.Google Scholar
MATHER, Lynn M. (1974) “Some Determinants of the Method of Case Disposition: Decision-Making by Public Defenders in Los Angeles,” 8 Law & Society Review 187.Google Scholar
ROSETT, Arthur I. and Donald R., CRESSEY (1976) Justice by Consent: Plea Bargains in the American Courthouse. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
UTZ, Pamela J. (1978) Settling the Facts: Discretion and Negotiation in Criminal Courts. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (1977) Felony Arrests: Their Prosecution and Disposition in New York City's Courts. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
WEINREB, Lloyd (1977) Denial of Justice: Criminal Process in the United States. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
WISHINGRAD, Jay (1974) “The Plea Bargain in Historical Perspective,” 23 Buffalo Law Review 499.Google Scholar