Plea Bargains - Both Sides

It seems that every so often, there is a story of an accused criminal making a "sweet" plea bargain and "getting off easy".  We all remember the outcry about the Karla Homolka plea bargain after the Paul Bernardo trial.  Mr. Justice Galligan reviewed the matter, and his recommendation was to leave the deal alone.  This offended a lot of people.  There is widespread support for the idea that, because Homolka may have deceived the Crown, the deal should be reopened.

The key to understanding plea bargains can be found by examining the term itself.  First of all, it is a guilty plea.  A plea means no trial, less cost, no chance of "getting off on a technicality" and no risk of an acquittal.  In short, it is a guaranteed conviction. Secondly, it is a bargain.  It's a bargain for the accused, because it means a conviction for a lesser offence, or a lesser punishment for the same offence.  It's a bargain for the Crown because the Crown gets a conviction, and, as in the Homolka affair, a promise by the accused to give crucial evidence in the trial of another accused.  Often, the plea bargain is offered to the lesser players in the crime, in order to secure a conviction of the more important accused.

Without plea bargains, accused persons would go to trial on every charge.  They would have nothing to lose.  This is an impracticable result.  The court system cannot handle such a caseload.  We cannot afford the tax dollars that would be required to pay for such a system.

Plea bargains give the accused a choice.  They also give the accused an incentive to plead guilty: plead now to a lesser offence, or go to trial and risk getting stung with more. If the Homolka deal was reopened, the entire plea bargain process would collapse.  There has to be some certainty before an accused will plead guilty.  Not every accused tells the entire truth when negotiating a plea.  That's life.  There is also no guarantee that an accused will tell the truth in a trial.  But if we open every deal where an accused lied, no accused would make plea bargains.  Why make a deal if the Crown might not keep its side of the bargain?

In the Homolka case, at the time, the Crown was unaware of the videotapes. (That is a separate matter.) They did not have enough evidence to be sure of convicting Bernardo. Without Homolka's evidence, he may have walked free: certainly a far greater injustice than a plea bargain which, in hindsight, seems too generous.