The predominant mission of the Public Prosecutor`s Office is. to ensure that justice is done. Proceedings must win the trust of the public and the judiciary. Many defendants in serious and complex fraud cases are represented by lawyers who have experience in commercial litigation, including negotiations. This means that the defendant is usually protected from undue pressure to plead. The main danger to be protected in these cases is that the prosecutor will be persuaded to accept a plea or basis that is not in the public interest and in the interest of the judiciary because it does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. Any agreement must reflect the gravity and magnitude of the offence and confer on the court the appropriate criminal powers. It must take into account the impact of an agreement on the victims and also on the general public, while respecting the rights of the accused. [11] For example, Robert Badinter argued that plea bargaining would give too much power to the prosecutor and encourage defendants to accept a fair sentence to avoid the risk of a higher sentence in a trial, even if they did not really deserve it. Only a minority of criminal cases are settled using this method: in 2009, 77,500 of the 673,700 decisions, or 11.5 per cent of prison court decisions, were settled. [48] The extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been thoroughly investigated. Much of the research has focused on the relatively few real cases where innocence was later proven, such as .B. Successful appeals for murder and rape based on DNA evidence, which is generally atypical for trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes).
Other studies have focused on presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and asking what choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to examine the actual reactions of innocent people in general when confronted with real plea bargaining decisions. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a situation of controlled plea bargaining in the real world rather than simply asking for theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research. [14] This put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact intentionally guilty (and knew so), and others were innocent but faced apparently strong evidence of guilt and no verifiable evidence of innocence. Each subject was given proof of guilt and was offered the choice between academic ethics counsel and possibly severe punishment in the form of additional courses and other confiscations, or admission of guilt and acceptance of a lighter «punishment.» The study found that, as might be expected from court statistics, about 90% of accused subjects who were actually guilty chose to plead guilty and plead guilty. It was also found that about 56% of subjects who were truly innocent (and knew this in private) also plead and plead guilty, among other reasons to avoid formal quasi-legal procedures, uncertainty, the possibility of greater damage to future personal projects or removal from the family environment due to remedial courses. The authors explained:[14] In other cases, formal pleadings in Pakistan are limited, but the prosecutor has the power to drop a case or indict in a case, and in practice he often does so in exchange for an accused pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The sentence, which is the only privilege of the court, is not heard. [Citation needed] Plea bargaining is permitted in the legal systems of England and Wales. The Sentencing Council`s guidelines require that the remission it grants to the judgment be determined by the time of the plea and no other factors. [5] The guidelines state that the earlier the guilty plea is made, the greater the reduction on the sentence.
The maximum allowable rebate is one-third for a plea filed at the earliest. There is no minimum discount; a confession of guilt made on the first ordinary day of the trial would expect a reduction of one tenth. The reduction can sometimes include a change in the type of punishment, for example. B as the replacement of a prison sentence for service of general interest. Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not really reduce the cost of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning the case and sending an accused to prison for 10 years, he or she may agree on a one-year sentence; But if plea bargaining is not available, a prosecutor may drop the case altogether. [18] A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal proceedings in which the prosecutor makes a concession to the defendant in exchange for an admission of guilt or a nolo contendere. This may mean that in exchange for dismissing other charges, the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge or to one of the various charges; or it may mean that the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. John H. Langbein argues that the modern American system of plea bargaining is comparable to the medieval European system of torture: plea bargaining has been defended as a voluntary exchange that puts both parties in a better position, since the defendants have many procedural and substantive rights, including a right to trial and appeal against a guilty verdict. By pleading guilty, the defendants waive these rights in exchange for an undertaking from the prosecutor, such as. B a reduced charge or a more favourable penalty.
[5] For a respondent who believes that a conviction is almost certain, a reduction in sentence is more useful than an unlikely chance of acquittal. [6] The prosecutor obtains a conviction, thus avoiding the need to devote time and resources to preparing for the trial and a possible trial. [7] Similarly, plea bargaining saves money and resources for the court before which the lawsuit is taking place. It also means that victims and witnesses do not have to testify in court, which can be traumatic in some cases. [5] A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid lengthy criminal proceedings and can allow defendants to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial for a more serious charge. For example, in the U.S. legal system, an accused accused of theft whose conviction would require a prison sentence in a state prison may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a charge of theft that may not result in a custodial sentence. In collective bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a crime less serious than the original charges against them. In collective bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of several original charges. At sentencing hearings, they plead guilty and agree in advance on the sentence to be imposed; however, this sentence may still be rejected by the judge. In fact, the defendants plead guilty, but the prosecutor agrees to establish (i.e., confirm or admit) certain facts that affect how the defendant is punished under the criminal guidelines. Good deals are just as likely in strong and weak cases.
Prosecutors only have to adjust the offer to the likelihood of a conviction in order to reach an agreement. Thus, weaker cases lead to softer plea negotiations and stronger cases to relative difficulties, but both lead to an agreement. [. If the case is weak, the parties must rely on collective bargaining. But [collective bargaining] is hardly an obstacle. Collective bargaining in weak cases is not the exception; it is the norm across the country. Although the evidence against innocent defendants is on average lower, the likelihood of plea negotiations does not depend on guilt. The fundamental principle of plea bargaining is that it must be based on the free will of the defendant, the equality of the parties and the advanced protection of the rights of the defendant: when entering into the plea agreement, the prosecutor is required to take into account the public interest, the severity of the sentence and the personal characteristics of the defendant. (Article 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia) In order to avoid misuse of powers, the legislator provides for the written consent of the Public Prosecutor`s Office as a necessary condition for the conclusion of an agreement on the lodging of an appeal and for the amendment of its provisions. (Article 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia) In Japan, plea bargaining was previously prohibited by law, although sources reported that prosecutors illegally offered plea negotiations to defendants in exchange for their confessions. [54] [55] [56] [57] Under the Japanese system, officially known as the «mutual consultation and agreement system» (協議・合意制度, kyogi-goi seido), plea bargaining is possible in criminal prosecutions for organized crime, competition law violations, and economic crimes such as securities law violations. The prosecutor, the accused and the defence lawyer each sign a written agreement, which must then be immediately admitted as evidence in open court.
[60] In 2009, the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Højesteret) ruled unanimously in a case concerning whether testimony from a plea agreement in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal case (297/2008 H) that plea bargains were prima facie and not legal under Danish law.[44] but that witnesses in the specific case were allowed to testify independently (provided that: the lower court considers the possibility that the testimony was false or at least influenced by the benefits of plea bargaining). [44] However, the Supreme Court noted that Danish law contains mechanisms similar to plea bargains, such as § 82, no. . .