the justice in settling

why does the idea of settling bother me so?

for the past few days in my criminal procedure class we've been watching this sensational made for tv movie appropriately entitled: 'criminal justice'. surprisingly it's actually an appropriate take on the criminal justice system in the united states and the role plea bargains play in cases never making it to trial.

if you are legitimately interested at this point in watching the movie.. don't read on, for i will spoil the ending for you, but otherwise...

the movie does a relatively good job of keeping the viewer in suspense regarding whether or not this case is goign to go to trial. on one hand, the defendant so fervently believes he is innocent and refuses to be put behind bars for any amount of time at all. on the other hand, there's the doubt of his story, and the fact that his alibi appears more than a tad bit hole-filled; and his defense attorney is wisely suggesting him to take a plea bargain. say you're guilty, and you'll get less time.

in the end, it is somewhat of a surprise, though hardly shocking, that the 'offender' takes the plea bargain. and rather than making me wonder if he was really guilty or not (the movie does not reveal, and our class was split in it's decision making), it left me with a curious sense of justice left undone.

on one side is the prosecutor, she offers the plea bargain, because frankly she isn't sure she has enough evidence to convict the poor bastard. on the other side sits the defense attorney who just wants to make sure his client gets the best option available - which he believes to be the least amount of jail time available. thus, they meet somewhere in between, settle on the issue of guilt or innocence, and agree on a plea bargain. it does seem obvious that the maxim and minimum of both injust scenarios are avoided. on one hand, he could have been really guilty, yet at trial found innocent and released. and likewise, he could really be innocent, and found guilty at trial, sentenced for the maximum time of 20 years.

yet where is the justice of compromise?

both sides, instead of chosing to roll the dice, settle for something inbetween. they settle for avoiding the extremes of injustice, all the meanwhile providing little comfort for justice received.

or maybe settling is just.

more thoughts later.