Answer to Question 1
d
Answer to Question 2
The common explanation for plea bargaining is that the courts have too many cases. Although this explanation contains some truth, it obscures too many important facets of what the courts do and why court actors readily engage in plea bargaining. Moreover, the caseload hypothesis cannot explain why plea bargaining is as prevalent in courts with relatively few cases as it is in courts with heavy caseloads. Instead, plea bargaining is best understood not as a response to large caseloads (i.e., caseload hypothesis), but rather as an adaptation to the realities of the types of cases that require disposition. In most cases, there is little question about the defendant's legal guilt. It is important to acknowledge this because a trial is a costly and sometimes risky method of establishing guilt, and it cannot wrestle with the question of how much leniency is appropriate. Through the process of plea bargaining, courthouse officials are able to individualize justice. In many instances, it is neither necessary nor desirable that every defendant have a trial.
Antidysrhythmic Drugs
Selected Drugs for Psoriasis and Related Disorders
Competence in expressing, understanding, and regulating emotions are crucial aspects of social ...
Vienna: Social Structure and Social Interaction
Calcium Channel Blockers (Class IV) and Miscellaneous Drugs for Dysrhythmias
The graph of y = sqrt(x) is vertically stretched by a factor