Date of Thesis

Spring 2026

Description

This thesis examines the legal process of plea bargaining as it currently operates within the criminal justice system in the United States. Through both an empirical and theoretical evaluation of this procedure, it analyzes how plea bargaining exists in practice and whether it can be considered a fair mechanism of case resolution. This project investigates the practice on a molecular level through its presence at a county-level court jurisdiction, which represents broader structural implications of the national legal system. Furthermore, it identifies three central factors that drive the overutilization of plea bargaining: power asymmetry, information, asymmetry, and case processing time.

Chapter 1 illustrates the evolution of plea bargaining from its earliest uses in court into a primary aspect of modern criminal procedure. This chapter highlights the shift from a time when defendants were apprehended for guilty pleas to the current system in which guilty pleas dominate case resolution. This shift is ultimately crucial in exposing the fact that the frequent use of plea bargaining is not an inherent procedure of the justice system. Chapter 2 examines Pennsylvania's court structure by demonstrating how cases move through its courts and how factors including caseload pressure and sentencing guidelines influence both prosecutor and defendant behavior in plea negotiations.

Chapter 3 presents a specific case study of plea bargaining at the Northumberland County Courthouse. It implements my personal courtroom observations as an intern and a descriptive dataset of common criminal charges to examine its frequency relative to trial proceedings. Chapter 4 discusses the fairness of plea bargaining through the theoretical frameworks of philosophers Brian Barry and T. M. Scanlon. This chapter heavily engages with the principles of

mutual advantage and impartiality in its assessment of whether plea bargaining upholds just standards. Lastly, Chapter 5 offers policy reforms centered around transparency and accountability with the goal of improving the current practices of plea negotiations.

This thesis subsequently argues that the existing overreliance on plea bargaining prioritizes efficiency over procedural justice and undermines the discretionary exercise of constitutional liberties. Moreover, it identifies three central factors that drive its use at such frequency: power asymmetry, information asymmetry, and case processing time. This thesis does not advocate for the complete eradication of plea bargaining, but rather critiques its use by prosecutors as well as the legal conditions that allow it to dominate methods of case resolution.

Keywords

criminal justice, plea bargaining, criminal procedure, political theory, procedural justice, pretrial detention

Access Type

Honors Thesis

Degree Type

Bachelor of Arts

Major

Political Science

Minor, Emphasis, or Concentration

History

First Advisor

Michael James

Second Advisor

Scott Meinke

Download

Share

COinS