9/11 and Justice Delayed and Victims Rights Denied!

9/11 and Justice Delayed and Victims Rights Denied!

September 12, 2025

Truality.Legalese — On Plea Deals, Truth, and the Cost of Avoiding Trial

I want to begin by expressing my deepest condolences for the profound loss suffered by the families affected by the September 11 attacks. Any discussion of justice in this context must start with respect for that reality. The weight of such loss changes how concepts like closure, accountability, and truth are understood. Justice, in cases of this magnitude, is not an abstract principle—it is personal.

Brett Eagleson, a family member of a 9/11 victim, has spoken publicly about his belief that the justice system does function, even if slowly and painfully. At the same time, he has raised serious concerns about the growing reliance on plea deals. In his view, plea agreements risk short-circuiting justice by avoiding trials where evidence, discovery, and testimony are fully examined in public.

For him—and for many families—a trial represents transparency. It allows facts to be tested, narratives to be challenged, and accountability to be established openly. Plea deals, by contrast, rely on negotiated statements rather than adversarial proof. When cases of historic or moral significance are resolved without trial, victims and the public can be left with the sense that essential truths were never fully brought into the light.

Why Plea Deals Exist

Plea agreements are a central feature of the modern criminal justice system. They exist primarily to manage volume and uncertainty. Trials are costly, time-consuming, and emotionally taxing for everyone involved—victims, defendants, witnesses, jurors, and court staff alike. By offering plea deals, prosecutors reduce risk and secure convictions without the unpredictability of a jury trial.

From an institutional perspective, plea deals:

Reduce court backlogs

Limit litigation costs

Provide predictable outcomes

Deliver faster resolution

In a system strained by limited resources and overwhelming caseloads, plea bargaining is often framed as pragmatic and necessary.

The Transparency Problem

The controversy begins when efficiency displaces truth-seeking.

In a full trial, evidence is disclosed, witnesses are cross-examined, and legal arguments are tested under scrutiny. The process is imperfect and slow, but it is designed to surface facts through challenge and contradiction. Plea deals bypass much of this structure. Especially in complex or historically significant cases, the absence of public adjudication can feel like justice deferred—or justice diluted.

Without a trial:

Facts may never be fully established

Investigative errors may go unchallenged

Accountability may remain incomplete

This concern is not theoretical. It is voiced repeatedly by victims who want the official record to reflect what actually happened, not merely what was negotiated.

Victims’ Rights and Legal Safeguards

Victims’ rights in plea negotiations are grounded in law. Federal and state statutes require prosecutors to notify victims of proposed plea agreements and allow them to express their views before deals are finalized. Prosecutors must certify that reasonable efforts were made to consult victims, and courts may reject plea agreements if these obligations are ignored.

These protections exist to balance efficiency with dignity. They acknowledge that victims are not bystanders in the justice process. However, consultation does not equal control. Victims may be heard without being heeded, and the final decision remains institutional.

That gap—between participation and outcome—is often where frustration resides.

When Trials Break Down

Trials, however, are not guaranteed paths to justice.

Mistrials, often caused by deadlocked juries, can force retrials that are increasingly difficult to prosecute. Over time:

Witness memories fade

Evidence degrades

Testimony becomes inconsistent

Each delay weakens the case. Prosecutors may face higher risks of acquittal with every retrial, while defendants endure prolonged uncertainty. These pressures frequently push both sides toward a plea, not because it is ideal, but because it feels inevitable.

This reality helps explain why plea deals dominate even in serious cases.

Finality Versus Truth

At the heart of the plea-bargaining debate lies a fundamental tension: finality versus truth.

Plea deals offer closure. They end proceedings, impose sentences, and allow institutions to move forward. But closure is not the same as understanding. A case can be legally resolved while morally unresolved.

Trials exist to establish facts publicly. They create a record that can be examined, questioned, and remembered. When cases are resolved through pleas, the record may reflect guilt without ever revealing the full story—how events unfolded, whether mistakes occurred, or whether broader institutional failures played a role.

For victims and families, this distinction matters deeply. Finality without truth can feel hollow.

Double Jeopardy and Prosecutorial Risk

Another structural force shaping plea decisions is the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Once a defendant is acquitted, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. For prosecutors, this creates a one-shot risk. If evidence is uncertain or a jury unpredictable, a trial carries the possibility of permanent loss.

Plea deals eliminate that risk. But they do so by avoiding the very process designed to test the strength of the case.

Plea Deals as Binding Legal Instruments

Once accepted by a court, plea agreements function as enforceable contracts. They often include conditions related to sentencing, probation, cooperation, or future conduct. Violations can return defendants to court, extending judicial oversight and reopening litigation.

This structure reinforces institutional control and efficiency, but it also concentrates leverage within the system. Defendants may feel pressured to accept terms to avoid harsher outcomes, even when factual disputes remain unresolved.

My Personal Take

What stands out to me is the persistent tension between efficiency and legitimacy. Plea deals keep the system moving, but movement alone is not justice. Justice must be visible, accountable, and worthy of trust—especially in cases that shape public memory and moral judgment. Trials are slow, painful, and imperfect, yet they remain our clearest mechanism for testing truth in the open. When matters of great consequence are resolved without that process, something essential is lost. The justice system should not only function; it should earn confidence by showing its work.

Conclusion

Plea bargaining is not inherently unjust, nor is trial a guaranteed path to truth. But when efficiency becomes the dominant value, transparency suffers. In cases where history, loss, and accountability converge, the cost of avoiding trial is not merely procedural—it is moral. A justice system that values both finality and truth must continually ask whether speed has come at the expense of understanding. Only by confronting that question honestly can justice remain both effective and legitimate.

Comments