Depends upon the crime. Early pleas save a lot of time and money, but you obviously have to take the impact into account. Nobody wants to see a burglar get six months because he pled early. Obvious solution would be to have harsher sentences as a starting point.
There's a subtle difference between 'plea bargaining' and discount for a guilty plea. The latter often prevents victims from having to undergo what can sometimes be the harrowing experience of having to relive their experience in court. So if it's fixed and certain then, and it doesn't allow too much reduction in sentence then in my view it has a place. A further offshoot is the controversial subject of how much of a custodial sentence different categories of offenders will actually serve in prison. That's a whole other vexed debate.
But don't hey only save time and money because the criminal is getting away with a more serious crime or because they are getting a sentence less than they should just because they are Beng honest about being a criminal after being caught? I've just read about the two teenage girls who kidnapped a toddler. They have got just 3 years each because the court accepted a plea of kidnapping instead of going after the full charge of kidnapping with the intention of commuting a sexual offence. For me that is just so wrong. These girls should be on the sex offenders registered and locked up for a VERY long time. There are very clear similarities between what they did and what the Bulger killers did but because a court has let them off with the most serious crime they are to be out of prison (detention centre) before their classmates have finished school. No sexual offences on record or anything. And that is despite the judge himself stating that it was clear what their intentions were, despite them having quite damning evidence what their intentions were and despite the girls clearly lying about what happened and never admitting what they really did (both girls versions of events differ wildly from the other). On one of the girls tablets they found several searches relating to rape of children including one pretty clear bit of evidence 'poor little thing getting kidnapped and raped' and despite that very clear evidence of their intentions the courts decided to let them off completely with that crime because the little sweethearts admitted to the far lesser crime of kidnap. A crime they could hardly deny considering they were caught red handed.
just simply cut their hands off as in the good old days. No more thieving rapists .. cut their privates off no more rape simples
Now that really DOES annoy me. Somebody who doesn't post an opinion and then expects everybody else to jump to their keyboards just to please him.
Kidnap is an offence under common law - it is not an offence set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The judge had unlimited powers of imprisonment for this offence (subject to the usual requirement of proportionality) and the removal of the "with intent etc...." clause did not restrict his powers. No sexual offence was actually committed, mercifully. It's easy to imagine that the girls might have intended to go on and commit a sexual offence or worse, and the judge clearly was of that view, but virtually impossible to prove that they would have done so. As that could not be proved, then I don't think the question of going on the sex offenders register arises. There are other preventative orders which could be applied for and no doubt the statutory agencies will consider this before they are released, provided that they qualify. Heaven forbid that we ever get to a system that deals with people for what they might have done. Having said all that, the sentence passed here on girls aged 13 and 14 is a very substantial one for defendants of their age.