Cognitive Theory and Plea-Bargaining

This article examines various cognitive theories and recent research in the context of plea bargaining. These developing cognitive theories provide meaningful insight into the defendant’s decision-making process when faced with the option to plead guilty or go to trial. For example, the author explains that defendants who rely on “verbatim processing” are more likely to plead guilty when they are innocent. This is because defendants who rely on this mental decision-making process are less likely to be influenced by a desire to not plead guilty to a crime they did not commit. Instead, they are more motivated to make decisions based on the specific trade-off of risk and reward placed before them. In addition, the author explores how plea decisions today are not rational because they are likely to be influenced by various biases and heuristics. The article closes by considering potential options for reform in the future, given the relevant science explored in the article.

“Current plea policy and the shadow of trial model presume that defendants can freely and rationally evaluate options and pick their preferred one. However, cognitive science disputes this, demonstrating how biases are likely to influence defendants making these decisions. The context of plea decisions should be considered, and policy should ensure that this context does not bias defendant plea decisions.” p. 200