Plea bargains in the Cumberland County are handled in the criminal courts. Under the plea bargains, defendants are expected to be notified in good time about the Miranda law. This law, which was developed after the Miranda ruling of 1966, has several components that establish the basis for bargaining for pleas (Cline, 2011). According to the Miranda law, it is the right of every citizen to be notified about the option of remaining silent upon arrest. For this reason, the police and any other person in the justice system should notify the defendant that upon being arrested, any information may be used against him. When a person is arrested and confesses of a crime before being told about the Miranda law, nothing said can be inadmissible against him.
Pleas are therefore developed under the concept of infringing the Miranda law by the arresting officers. These charges that are heard in the court of common pleas are subject to the intents of performing the alleged action. Voluntary and involuntary actions are analyzed before the courts can offer their judgments. One of the things that are investigated and considered by the courts of Cumberland County is voluntary acceptance and delivery of pleas. Compelling an individual to bargain for pleas is unacceptable and for this reason, voluntary acceptance of pleas should be prioritized (Gado, 2004).
It is also expected that the defendants prove of unknowing about the alleged crime case. Since guilty pleas have to be subject to the understanding of the criminal, investigations must show that the alleged person did not know about the crime at the time of performing it. There must be a plea agreement between both parties in order for any plea to hold. There must be substantial evidence to detach the alleged criminal with the criminal activity. Failure to have the required evidence leads the courts to make rulings that are subject to the statutes provided.
According to the courts provisions, the defendant is not to be notified about the collateral consequences pertaining to the plea applied for. This includes the projected credits, location of incarceration and the sentence expected. In case of insanity, the Cumberland county courts look at the intentions of committing the crime and for this reason, it becomes hard to use the insanity pleas as they require more than the intents to commit the crimes (Umbright, 2006). While the guilty pleas are not so common, there are instances when they have to be scrutinized in order to ensure that the criminals are not doing so to gain some credit (Sandefr, 2003).
Prejudice and being compelled to accept charges has to be evaluated before allowing the plea bargains to proceed. Under the Miranda law, the accused must have been notified about the rights to silent and to a counsel before being arraigned in court. Otherwise, all information gathered before the Miranda statement cannot be used as a statement from the criminal (Cline, 2011). Under these conditions, the Cumberland County uses most of the provisions of the federal law to carry out decisions pertaining to plea bargains.
Plea bargaining are therefore subject to the findings upon investigation and witnesses’ information. Under the Cumberland’s court of common pleas, the types of cases present include some cases that are beyond the jurisdiction of other courts, domestic issues, arbitrary reviews and other criminal cases that require proper analysis to grant plea request (Town Court Listing, 2011). While the insanity defense is evaluated in terms of intents and the state of mind at the time of perpetrating the act, the courts in Cumberland have to follow the statutes that protect the rights of the criminals (Umbright, 2006).
In conclusion, plea bargains are approached in different perspectives depending on the reasons granted under the plea requests. While investigations serve as the most significant issues in court proceedings, the defendants’ arguments and status at the time of committing the crime are also evaluated.
References
Cline, S. G. (2011). What Are Miranda Rights and How Does One Get Them? Web.
Gado, M. (2004). The Insanity Defense. TruTV Crime Library. Web.
Sandefr, T. (2003). In Defense of Plea Barganining. Regulation, Fall. Web.
Town Court Listing. (2011). Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Web.
Umbright, E. (2006). How do we decide who’s insane? Wentzville, MO: St. Charles County Business Record.