Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:25:00.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pretrial Settlement Conference: Evaluation of a Reform in Plea Bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1979

Anne M. Heinz  and
Wayne A. Kerstetter
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

A field experiment in Dade County, Florida, evaluated the use of a pretrial settlement conference as a means of restructuring plea negotiations. All negotiations took place in front of a judge and victim, defendant, and arresting police officer were invited to attend. The conferences were brief but generally reached at least an outline of a settlement. They usually included at least one lay party although lay attendance rates were quite low. The change in the structure reduced the time involved in processing cases by lowering the information and decisionmaking costs to the judges and attorneys. No significant changes were observed in the settlement rate or in the imposition of criminal sanctions. There was some evidence that police and victims who attended the sessions obtained more information and developed more positive attitudes about the way their cases were handled.

Type
Reform Efforts
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Winter 1979 , pp. 349 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

The authors wish to thank the participants in the Dade County experiment, especially the judges and attorneys and their staffs, for their continued cooperation and interest in this project. Our research staff in Dade County, directed by Charlotte Boc, provided us with consistently high quality data in the face of substantial obstacles; without their perseverance the evaluation would never have been completed. The project was conducted at the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice of the University of Chicago Law School. Heinz was the senior methodologist and research associate; Kerstetter, the project director and Associate Director of the Center. We particularly wish to acknowledge the unfailing support and stimulus of the Center staff, and especially Frank E. Zimring, Ben S. Meeker, and Helen Flint.

The evaluation was prepared under Grant 76-NI-99-0088 from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

References

ALSCHULER, Albert W. (1976) “The Trial Judge's Role in Plea Bargaining, Part I,” 76 Columbia Law Review 1059.Google Scholar
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION: PROJECT ON MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE CRIMINAL TRIAL (1967) Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY (1973) Criminal Justice in Dade County: A Preliminary Survey, Vol. 3. Chicago: American Judicature Society.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Donald T. and Julian C., STANLEY (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, Shari and Hans, ZEISEL (1975) “Sentencing Councils: A Study of Sentence Disparity and Its Reduction,” 43 University of Chicago Law Review 109.Google Scholar
DuBOW, Fredric L. and Theodore M., BECKER (1976) “Patterns of Victim Advocacy,” in McDonald, W. F. (ed.) Criminal Justice and the Victim. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
KERSTETTER, Wayne A. and Anne M., HEINZ (1979) Pretrial Settlement Conference: An Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
McCALL, George J. (1975) Observing the Law: Applications of Field Methods to the Study of the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
MORRIS, Norval (1974) The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
RHODES, William (1978) Plea Bargaining: Who Gains? Who Loses? (PROMIS Research Project No. 14, Final Draft). Washington, D.C.: Institute for Law and Social Research.Google Scholar
ROSETT, Arthur I. and Donald R., CRESSEY (1976) Justice by Consent: Plea Bargains in the American Courthouse. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
U.S. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS (1973) Courts. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
WEISS, Carol H. (1972) Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
YALE LAW JOURNAL (1972) “Comment: Restructuring the Plea Bargain,” 82 Yale Law Journal 286.Google Scholar