By Ram Subramanian, Leon Digard, Melvin Washington II, and Stephanie Sorage 

There are concerns about plea bargaining’s coercive nature, its role in encouraging the forfeiture of procedural protections, and its role in fueling mass incarceration. In order to provide an accessible summary of existing research, the Vera Institute of Justice, with support from the Safety and Justice Challenge, examined the small but growing body of empirical studies that has developed around plea bargaining. The result is a mix of complicated, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory research findings.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 72p.

By Ilya Klauzner and Steve Yeong

The Early Appropriate Guilty Plea (EAGP) reforms were introduced in April 2018 to incentivise the entry of guilty pleas early in the court process. The reforms included early certification of charges, increased and earlier negotiation between the defence and prosecution, continuity of legal representation, and statutory sentencing discounts for early guilty pleas. The reforms substantially changed the court processes for defendants charged with the most serious (i.e., indictable) offences. We examine whether the EAGP reforms achieved its main aims. The reforms were intended to increase the proportion of cases with an early guilty plea as well as a guilty plea at any point in the court process. The increased efficiency associated with avoiding a committal to trial was also expected to contribute to: • A reduction in the time to case finalisation; • An increase in the weekly number of case finalisations in the District Court (DC). Our study examines these outcomes by comparing cases initiated after the EAGP reforms (i.e., with a charge date on or after the 30th April 2018 and finalisation date before the 16th March 2020) to cases initiated before the reforms (i.e., with a charge date after 13th June 2016 and a finalisation date before 30th April 2018).

Sydney, AUS: NSW Bureau Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2021. 22p.