Plea bargaining stems from institutional actors’ shared interest in speed, not caseloads

Evidence

Other studies attribute the prevalence of plea bargaining less to a shared concern for substantive justice than to the shared interest of attorneys and judges in processing cases quickly. This interest in the speedy disposition of cases exists in both low-volume and high-volume courts and so does not depend on caseload pressures. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1780

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Rising caseloads without matching resources drove the spread of plea bargaining — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1765; Repeat players in one courtroom develop shared familiarity that shapes plea bargaining — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1749; Caseload volume does not determine how much courts rely on plea bargaining — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1768 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Plea bargaining persists even when caseload and evidence cannot explain it #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1773
• Caseload pressures alone cannot explain plea bargaining rates #corroborates (1.00)
• Speed is rhetorically repurposed to justify surrendering individual agency #expands (1.00) — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1381