Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T16:00:20.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on the History of Plea Bargaining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Lynn M. Mather
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Historical Perspectives
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Winter 1979 , pp. 281 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ARNOLD, Thurman W. (1962) The Symbols of Government. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
MATHER, Lynn M. (1974) “Some Determinants of the Method of Case Disposition: Decision-Making by Public Defenders in Los Angeles,” 8 Law & Society Review 187.Google Scholar
MATHER, Lynn M. (1979) Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal Case Disposition. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
MILLER, Justin (1927) “The Compromise of Criminal Cases,” 1 Southern California Law Review 1.Google Scholar
MOLEY, Raymond (1929) Politics and Criminal Prosecution. New York: Minton, Balch.Google Scholar
NEWMAN, Donald J. (1966) Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence without Trial. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
POUND, Roscoe (1930) Criminal Justice in America. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
UTZ, Pamela (1978) Settling the Facts: Discretion and Negotiation in Criminal Court. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
VASOLI, Robert H. (1965) “Growth and Consequences of Judicial Discretion in Sentencing,” 40 Notre Dame Lawyer 404.Google Scholar