All of the following are true about the extensive use of plea bargaining EXCEPT:
A. plea bargaining increases the need for a PSI.
B. plea bargaining decreases the need for a PSI.
C. plea bargaining has resulted in the use of pre-plea reports.
D. plea bargaining saves time for both the prosecutor and the defense.
is it A
What is PSI?
Presentence Investigation
If the defendant has agreed, in a plea bargain, to a sentence, why is a PSI necessary?
is it A?
To determine the correct answer, let's analyze each option and understand its implications:
A. Plea bargaining increases the need for a Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI). This statement suggests that plea bargaining leads to an increased requirement for a PSI. A PSI is a report prepared by probation officers that provides information on an offender's background, criminal history, and other relevant factors to assist the courts in sentencing decisions.
B. Plea bargaining decreases the need for a PSI. This statement implies that plea bargaining reduces the necessity for a PSI report. In contrast to option A, it suggests that when a plea agreement is reached, there may be less need for the courts to conduct a full PSI.
C. Plea bargaining has resulted in the use of pre-plea reports. This statement implies that plea bargaining has led to the introduction and utilization of reports prepared prior to the plea agreement. These pre-plea reports may provide valuable information to both prosecutors and defense attorneys during the plea negotiation process.
D. Plea bargaining saves time for both the prosecutor and the defense. This statement suggests that plea bargaining is an efficient process, leading to time savings for both the prosecution and the defense. By reaching a plea agreement, the parties involved can avoid prolonged courtroom procedures, such as trials.
Now, let's reassess each option:
Option A states that plea bargaining increases the need for a PSI. This aligns with the purpose of a PSI report, which typically becomes more necessary when a plea agreement is not reached. Therefore, option A could be true.
Option B states that plea bargaining decreases the need for a PSI. This contradicts the traditional understanding that a PSI report is more relevant when no plea agreement exists. Thus, option B seems to be false.
Option C states that plea bargaining has resulted in the use of pre-plea reports. This claim suggests that plea bargaining has led to the development and use of reports created before the plea agreement. This aligns with the current practice in many jurisdictions. Therefore, option C could be true.
Option D states that plea bargaining saves time for both the prosecutor and the defense. This claim is commonly understood, as plea bargaining helps expedite the legal process by reaching a mutually agreed resolution. This suggests that option D could be true.
Based on our analysis, option B, "plea bargaining decreases the need for a PSI," stands out as the only statement that does not hold true.