Content deleted Content added
Tags: Reverted review edit |
No edit summary |
||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{MOS|date=October 2018}}
A '''plea bargain''' (also '''plea agreement''' or '''plea deal''') is
A plea bargain allows both parties to avoid a lengthy criminal trial and may allow criminal defendants to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on a more serious charge. For example, in the legal system of the United States, a criminal defendant charged with a [[felony]] theft charge, the conviction of which would require imprisonment in state prison, may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty to a [[misdemeanor]] theft charge, which may not carry a custodial sentence.
Line 11 ⟶ 8:
In cases such as an automobile collision when there is a potential for civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead "no contest" or "guilty with a civil reservation", which essentially is a guilty plea without admitting civil liability.
Plea bargaining can present a dilemma to [[defense attorney]]s, in that they must choose between vigorously seeking a good deal for their present client, or maintaining a good relationship with the prosecutor for the sake of helping future clients.<ref>{{Citation|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ucinlr49&div=46&id=&page=|volume=1998|page=183|year=1998|title=Utilitarian Analysis of the Objectives of Criminal Plea Negotiation and Negotiation Strategy Choice|journal=University of Cincinnati Law Review|author=Vanover, Joseph W.|url-status=live|
In charge bargaining, defendants plead guilty to a less serious crime than the original charge that was filed against them. In count bargaining, they plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges. In sentence bargaining, they plead guilty agreeing in advance what sentence will be given; however, this sentence can still be denied by the judge. In [[fact bargaining]], defendants plead guilty but the prosecutor agrees to stipulate (i.e., to affirm or concede) certain facts that will affect how the defendant is punished under the [[sentencing guidelines]].
Plea bargaining was considered a predominantly
==Advantages==
Plea bargaining has been defended as a voluntary exchange that leaves both parties better off, in that defendants have many procedural and substantive rights, including a right to trial and to appeal a guilty verdict. By pleading guilty, defendants waive those rights in exchange for a commitment from the prosecutor, such as a reduced charge or more favorable sentence.<ref name="SentencingCouncil">
{{cite web|url=https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Reduction-in-Sentence-for-Guilty-plea-Definitive-Guide_FINAL_WEB.pdf|title=Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea|publisher=[[Sentencing Council]]|date=1 June 2017|
==Disadvantages and issues==
=== Scope for coercive manipulation ===
Plea bargaining is criticized, particularly outside the United States, on the grounds that its close relationship with rewards, threats and coercion potentially endanger the correct legal outcome.<ref>{{citation|journal=Journal of Criminal Justice|volume=82|issue=4|date=2022|title=How do the consequences of pretrial detention on guilty pleas and carceral sentences vary between misdemeanor and felony cases?|author=Thomas, C.|author2=Cadoff, B.|author3=Wolff, K. T.|author4=Chauhan, P.|page=102008 |doi=10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.102008 |s2cid=253991546 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365754233}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Bawden|first1=Tom|title=Analysis: the Natwest Three plea bargain|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/analysis-the-natwest-three-plea-bargain-xvw5h6dfjmd|
Author [[Martin Yant]] discusses the use of coercion in plea bargaining:
Line 31 ⟶ 28:
This tactic is prohibited in some other countries—for example in the United Kingdom the prosecutor's code states:
<blockquote>Prosecutors should never go ahead with more charges than are necessary just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a few. In the same way, they should never go ahead with a more serious charge just to encourage a defendant to plead guilty to a less serious one.<ref>{{cite web|title=Code for Crown Prosecutors - Selection of Charges|url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/charges.html|website=Crown Prosecution Service|
although it adds that in some kinds of complex cases such as major [[fraud]] trials:
Line 38 ⟶ 35:
[[John H. Langbein]] argues that the modern American system of plea bargaining is comparable to the medieval European system of [[torture]]:
<blockquote>There is, of course, a difference between having your limbs crushed if you refuse to confess, or suffering some extra years of imprisonment if you refuse to confess, but the difference is of degree, not kind. Plea bargaining, like torture, is coercive. Like the medieval Europeans, the Americans are now operating a procedural system that engages in condemnation without adjudication.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Langbein |first1=John |year=1978 |title=Torture and Plea Bargaining |journal=[[The University of Chicago Law Review]] |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=3–22 |url=http://www.judicialstudies.unr.edu/JS_Summer09/JSP_Week_4/JS710Wk4.LangbeinTorandPleaBargtxt.pdf |
=== Consequences for innocent accused ===
Line 45 ⟶ 42:
A 2009 study by the European Association of Law and Economics observed that innocent defendants are consistently more likely than guilty defendants to reject otherwise-favorable pleas proposals, even when theoretically disadvantageous to do so, because of perceived unfairness, and would do so even if the expected sanction would be worse if they proceeded to trial. The study concluded that "[t]his somewhat counterintuitive 'cost of innocence', where the preferences of innocents lead them collectively to fare worse than their guilty counterparts, is further increased by the practice of imposing much harsher sentences at trial on defendants who contest the charges. This '[[trial penalty]]' seeks to facilitate guilty pleas by guilty defendants [...and ironically...] disproportionately, collectively, penalizes innocents, who reject on fairness grounds some offers their guilty counterparts accept."<ref name="GAT_2012">{{cite journal|last1=Avishalom|first1=Tor|last2=Gazal-Ayal|first2=Oren|last3=Garcia|first3=Stephen M.|title=Fairness and the Willingness to Accept Plea Bargain Offers|journal=Journal of Empirical Legal Studies|date=March 2010|volume=7|issue=1|pages=97–116|doi=10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01171.x|url=http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1834&context=law_faculty_scholarship}}</ref>
The extent to which innocent people will accept a plea bargain and plead guilty is contentious and has been subjected to considerable research. Much research has focused on the relatively few actual cases where innocence was subsequently proven, such as successful appeals for murder and rape based upon [[DNA evidence]], which tend to be atypical of trials as a whole (being by their nature only the most serious kinds of crime). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and asking what choice they would make. More recently some studies have attempted to examine actual reactions of innocent persons generally, when faced with actual plea bargain decisions. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a real-life controlled plea bargain situation, rather than merely asking theoretical responses to a theoretical situation—a common approach in previous research.<ref name="DervanEdkins2013">{{cite journal |last1=Dervan |first1=Lucian E. |last2=Edkins |first2=Vanessa A. |year=2013 |title=The Innocent Defendant's Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study of Plea Bargaining's Innocence Problem |journal=[[Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology|J. Crim. Law Criminol.]] |volume=103 |issue=1 |pages=1 |url=http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss1/1 |
<blockquote>Previous research has argued that the innocence problem is minimal because defendants are risk-prone and willing to defend themselves before a tribunal. Our research, however, demonstrates that when study participants are placed in real, rather than hypothetical, bargaining situations and are presented with accurate information regarding their statistical probability of success, just as they might be so informed by their attorney or the government during a criminal plea negotiation, innocent defendants are highly risk-averse.</blockquote>
Line 53 ⟶ 50:
<blockquote>[P]lea bargains are just as likely in strong and weak cases. Prosecutors only need to adjust the offer to the probability of conviction in order to reach an agreement. Thus, weaker cases result in more lenient plea bargains, and stronger ones in relative harshness, but both result in an agreement. [... W]hen the case is weak, the parties must rely on charge bargaining ... But [charge bargaining] is hardly an obstacle. Charge bargaining in weak cases is not the exception; it is the norm all around the country. Thus, even if the evidence against innocent defendants is, on average, weaker, the likelihood of plea bargains is not dependent on guilt.</blockquote>
Another situation in which an innocent defendant may plead guilty is in the case of a defendant who cannot raise bail, and who is being held in custody in a jail or detention facility. Because it may take months, or even years, for criminal cases to come to trial or even indictment in some jurisdictions, an innocent defendant who is offered a plea bargain that includes a sentence of less time than they would otherwise spend in jail awaiting an indictment or a trial may choose to accept the plea arrangement and plead guilty.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html |title=The Bail Trap |last=Pinto |first=Nick |date=13 August 2015 |work=Sunday Magazine |publisher=New York Times |url-status=live |
=== Misalignment of goals and incentives ===
[[Agency problem]]s may arise in plea bargaining as, although the prosecutor represents the people and the defense attorney represents the defendant, these agents' goals may not be congruent with those of their
A prosecutor may want to maintain a high [[conviction rate]] or avoid a losing high-profile trials, creating the potential that they will enter into a plea bargain that furthers their interests but reduces the potential of the prosecution and sentence to deter crime.<ref>{{cite journal|
=== Issues related to cost of justice ===
Another argument against plea bargaining is that it may not actually reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending a defendant away to prison for 10 years, they may make a plea agreement for a sentence of one year; but if plea bargaining is unavailable, a prosecutor may drop the case completely.<ref>{{Citation|volume=13|publisher=Law & Soc'y Rev.|page=555|date=1978–1979|title=Plea Bargaining: A Critic's Rejoinder|author=Kipnis, Kenneth|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/lwsocrw13§ion=35|url-status=live|
==Usage in common law countries==
===United States===▼
{{Main|Plea bargaining in the United States}}▼
Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority (roughly 90%)<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Plea Bargaining and Its History |first=Albert W. |last=Alschuler |journal=[[Columbia Law Review|Colum. L. Rev.]] |year=1979 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=1–43 |jstor=1122051 |doi=10.2307/1122051 |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2005&context=journal_articles }}</ref> of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a [[jury trial]].<ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/mcspadden.html Interview with Judge Michael McSpadden] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010131431/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/mcspadden.html |date=2017-10-10 }} PBS interview, December 16, 2003</ref> Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different states and jurisdictions have different rules. The [[Federal Sentencing Guidelines]] are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts. A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who [[accept responsibility]] by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case; this usually amounts to a complete sentence reduction had they gone to trial and lost.<ref>{{Citation|volume=54|publisher=Stan. L. Rev.|page=311|date=2001–2002|title=Apprendi and the Dynamics of Guilty Pleas|author=Bibas, Stephanos|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/stflr54§ion=17|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120118234257/http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals%2Fstflr54§ion=17|archivedate=2012-01-18}}</ref>▼
The [[Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]] provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw their plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, however, binds the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw their plea.<ref>{{cite web|title=Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11. Pleas|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|accessdate=28 June 2017|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729182541/https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11|archivedate=29 July 2017|date=2011-11-30}}</ref>▼
Plea bargains are so common in the [[Superior Courts of California]] (the general trial courts) that the [[Judicial Council of California]] has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisements required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements.<ref>See [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf Form CR-101, Plea Form With Explanations and Waiver of Rights-Felony] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091009133217/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf |date=2009-10-09 }}, [[Judicial Council of California]].</ref>▼
Certain aspects of the American justice system serve to promote plea bargaining. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system puts judges in a passive role, in which they have no independent access to information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The prosecutor and defense may thus control the outcome of a case through plea bargaining. The court must approve a plea bargain as being within the interests of justice.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Larson|first1=Aaron|title=How Do Plea Bargains Work|url=https://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/plea_bargains.html|website=ExpertLaw|accessdate=28 June 2017|date=2 August 2016|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170905231449/https://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/plea_bargains.html|archivedate=5 September 2017}}</ref>▼
The lack of [[compulsory prosecution]] also gives prosecutors greater discretion as well as the inability of crime victims to mount a [[private prosecution]] and their limited ability to influence plea agreements.<ref>{{Citation|title=The Entrenched Position of Plea Bargaining in United States Legal Practice|author=JE Ross|year=2006|pages=717–732|journal=[[American Journal of Comparative Law]] |volume=54|jstor=20454559|doi=10.1093/ajcl/54.suppl1.717}}</ref> Defendants who are held in custody—who either do not have the right to bail or cannot afford bail, or who do not qualify for release on their own recognizance—may get out of jail immediately following the judge's acceptance of a plea.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Raphling|first1=John|title=Plead guilty, go home. Plead not guilty, stay in jail|url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raphling-bail-20170517-story.html|accessdate=19 November 2017|work=Los Angeles Times|date=17 May 2017|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171118173541/http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raphling-bail-20170517-story.html|archivedate=18 November 2017}}</ref>▼
Generally, once a plea bargain is made and accepted by the courts, the matter is final and cannot be appealed. However, a defendant may withdraw his plea for certain legal reasons,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wispd.org/attachments/article/230/Substantive%20Claims%20and%20New%20Developments%20in%20Appeals%20of%20Plea%20Cases.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2017-11-04 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20170517062308/http://wispd.org/attachments/article/230/Substantive%20Claims%20and%20New%20Developments%20in%20Appeals%20of%20Plea%20Cases.pdf |archivedate=2017-05-17 }}</ref> and a defendant may agree to a "conditional" plea bargain, whereby they plead guilty and accept a sentence, but reserve the right to appeal a specific matter (such as violation of a constitutional right). If the defendant does not win on appeal the agreement is carried out; if the defendant is successful on appeal the bargain is terminated. The defendant in ''[[Doggett v. United States]]'' made such a bargain, reserving the right to appeal solely on the grounds that he was not given a speedy trial as required by the United States Constitution; Doggett's claim was upheld by the United States Supreme Court and he was freed.▼
===Canada===
In Canada, the courts always have the final say with regard to sentencing. Nevertheless, plea bargaining has become an accepted part of the criminal justice system although judges and Crown attorneys are often reluctant to refer to it as such. In most Canadian criminal proceedings, [[the Crown]] has the ability to recommend a lighter sentence than it would seek following a guilty verdict in exchange for a guilty plea.<ref>{{cite web|title=Victim Participation in the Plea Negotiation Process in canada|url=http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr02_5/p3.html|website=Department of Justice|
Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown can also agree to withdraw some charges against the defendant in exchange for a guilty plea. This has become standard procedure for certain offences such as [[impaired driving]]. In the case of [[hybrid offence]]s, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed [[summary conviction|summarily]] or [[Indictable offence|by indictment]] prior to the defendant making his or her plea. If the Crown elects to proceed summarily and the defendant then pleads [[not guilty (plea)|not guilty]], the Crown cannot change its election. Therefore, the Crown is not in a position to offer to proceed summarily in exchange for a guilty plea.
Canadian judges are not bound by the Crown's sentencing recommendations and could impose harsher (or more lenient) penalties. Therefore, the Crown and the defence will often make a ''joint submission'' with respect to sentencing. While a joint submission can entail both the Crown and defence recommending exactly the same disposition of a case, this is not common except in cases that are sufficiently minor that the Crown is willing to recommend a [[discharge (sentence)|discharge]]. In more serious cases, a joint submission normally call for a sentence within relatively narrow range, with the Crown arguing for a sentence at the upper end of the range and the defence arguing for a sentence at the lower end, so as to maintain the visibility of the judge's ability to exercise discretion.<ref>{{cite web|title=Resolution Discussions|url=http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch07.html|website=Public Prosecution Service of Canada|
Judges are not bound to impose a sentence within the range of a joint submission, and a judge's disregard for a joint submission is not in itself grounds for the sentence to be altered on appeal. However, if a judge routinely disregards joint submissions, that judge would compromise the ability of the Crown to offer meaningful incentives for defendants to plead guilty. Defence lawyers would become reluctant to enter into joint submissions if they were thought to be of little value with a particular judge, which would thus result in otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will normally impose a sentence within the range of any joint submission.<ref>{{Cite web |author=A. Pringle |url=http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006344#SUBLinks |title=Plea Bargaining - The Canadian Encyclopedia |publisher=Encyclopediecanadienne.ca |
Following a [[Supreme Court of Canada]] ruling that imposes strict time limits on the resolution of criminal cases (eighteen months for cases in provincial court and thirty months for cases in Superior Court), several provinces have initiated and intensified measures intended to maximize the number of minor criminal cases resolved by a plea bargain.
Largely particular to the Canadian justice system is that further negotiations concerning the final disposition of a criminal case may also arise even after a sentence has been passed. This is because in Canada the Crown has (by common law standards) a very broad right to appeal acquittals,{{citation needed|date=July 2016}} and also a right to appeal for harsher sentences except in cases where the sentence imposed was maximum allowed. Therefore, in Canada, after sentencing the defence sometimes has an incentive to try
===England and Wales===
In England and Wales, plea bargaining, in the sense of seeking a particular sentence in exchange for dropping some charges, is not permitted; only the judge or magistrates have the power to determine sentence, and an agreement between the prosecution and defence cannot bind the court. The [[Crown Prosecution Service]] is required to prosecute an offence only where there is a realistic prospect of conviction, so greater charges cannot lawfully be used in bad faith to intimidate the defendant into accepting the charge actually sought.
A defendant is permitted to plead guilty to some charges listed on the charge sheet or indictment and deny others, and the prosecution may agree to accept this plea and drop the denied charges; such an agreement will generally be accepted by the court as it serves the public interest, as well as the defendant's and victims' interests, to avoid the expense and stress of a trial. The defendant may also plead guilty on the basis of accepted facts that may affect sentencing while denying others, but the Sentencing Council stresses that the prosecution should accept such a plea only if it enables the court to impose a sentence and make other ancillary orders that are appropriate for the seriousness of the offence, and never merely for the sake of convenience. The prosecution must also take the victims' views into account.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/guiltypleas.html |title=Code for Crown Prosecutors – Accepting Guilty Pleas |publisher=Crown Prosecution Service |access-date=2013-11-21 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130828213532/http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/guiltypleas.html |archive-date=2013-08-28 }}</ref>
In cases before the Crown Court, the defendant can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty. Following the rule in ''[[R v Goodyear]]'', it is only appropriate to give such an indication if requested by the defence with the defendant's written authorization; such indication is treated as binding on the court, but only if the defendant actually pleads guilty, and cannot prevent the sentence being [[Criminal Justice Act 1988#Unduly lenient sentences|appealed as unduly lenient]].<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants=R v Goodyear |year=2005 |court=EWCA |division=Crim |courtname=auto |juris=auto |num=888 |date=19 April 2005 |access-date=2013-11-21}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm |title=At the Crown Court – Court Stage – Enforcement Guide (England & Wales) |publisher=Health and Safety Executive |access-date=2012-07-31 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120709015904/http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm |archive-date=2012-07-09 }}</ref>
In the case of hybrid offences in England and Wales, the decision whether to deal with a case in Magistrates' Court or Crown Court is not made by magistrates until after a plea has been entered. A defendant is thus unable to plead guilty in exchange for having a case dealt with in Magistrates' Court (which has lesser sentencing powers).▼
▲In the case of
Where the defendant pleads guilty or indicates an intention to do so, the guidelines set by the [[Sentencing Council]] typically require that they receive a discount on the sentence, with the amount of discount depending on the timing:
*Indicating a guilty plea at the first opportunity (typically the committal hearing in the magistrates' court): one third
*Pleading guilty at a later hearing in the magistrates' court, or at the first hearing in crown court (typically the plea and case management hearing): one quarter
*Pleading guilty on the first day of trial: one tenth
The discount can sometimes involve changing the type of punishment, such as substituting a prison sentence for [[Community service#Court ordered service|community service]].<ref name="SentencingCouncil"/> For some offences where a mandatory minimum sentence applies, section 73 of the [[Sentencing Act 2020]] permits the sentence to be reduced this way up to 20 percent below the minimum.<ref name="2020c17s73"/>
Section 73 requires the court to take into account the circumstances under which an indication to plead guilty was made in addition to its timing.<ref name="2020c17s73">{{cite legislation UK |type=act |year=2020 |chapter=17 |section=73 |act=Sentencing Act 2020}}</ref>
===India===
Plea bargaining was introduced in India by ''The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005'', which amended the [[Criminal Procedure Code of India|Code of Criminal Procedure]] and introduced a new chapter, XXI(A), in the code, enforceable from July 5, 2006.<ref name="Act 2 of 2006">{{cite web|title=The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1732853/|website=India Kanoon|
In 2007, the Sakharam Bandekar case became the first such case in India where the accused, Sakharam Bandekar, requested lesser punishment in return for confessing to his crime (using plea bargaining). However, the court rejected his plea and accepted the [[Central Bureau of Investigation|CBI]]'s argument that the accused was facing serious charges of corruption.<ref>{{cite news|title=First plea bargaining case in city|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/First-plea-bargaining-case-in-city/articleshow/2458523.cms?referral=PM|
In December 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was passed, to replace Code of Criminal Procedure by July 2024, which allows first time offender to be given relaxed punishment (one-fourth and one-sixth of such punishment) in plea bargaining.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Lok Sabha passes three criminal law Bills: Here are the key changes |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/criminal-law-bills-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-key-changes-highlights-9077165/ |access-date=2024-06-16 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>
▲In 2007, the Sakharam Bandekar case became the first such case in India where the accused, Sakharam Bandekar, requested lesser punishment in return for confessing to his crime (using plea bargaining). However, the court rejected his plea and accepted the [[Central Bureau of Investigation|CBI]]'s argument that the accused was facing serious charges of corruption.<ref>{{cite news|title=First plea bargaining case in city|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/First-plea-bargaining-case-in-city/articleshow/2458523.cms?referral=PM|accessdate=28 June 2017|newspaper=Times of India|date=15 October 2007|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019182743/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/First-plea-bargaining-case-in-city/articleshow/2458523.cms?referral=PM|archivedate=19 October 2017}}</ref> Finally, the court [[convicted]] Bandekar and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.<ref>{{cite news|title=RBI clerk sent to 3 yrs in jail|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/RBI-clerk-sent-to-3-yrs-in-jail/articleshow/2461828.cms?referral=PM|accessdate=28 June 2017|newspaper=Times of India|date=16 October 2007|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019182751/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/RBI-clerk-sent-to-3-yrs-in-jail/articleshow/2461828.cms?referral=PM|archivedate=19 October 2017}}</ref>
===Pakistan===
Plea bargaining as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law. A special feature of this plea bargain is that the accused applies for it, accepting guilt, and offers to return the proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators and prosecutors. After an endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau, the request is presented before the court, which decides whether it should be accepted or not. If the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands convicted but neither is sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. The accused is disqualified to take part in elections, hold any public office, or obtain a loan from any bank; the accused is also dismissed from service if a government official.
In other cases, formal plea bargains in Pakistan are limited, but the prosecutor has the authority to drop a case or a charge in a case and, in practice, often does so, in return for a defendant pleading guilty on some lesser charge. No bargaining takes place over the penalty, which is the court's sole privilege.{{
▲===United States===
▲{{Main|Plea bargaining in the United States}}
▲Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority (roughly 90%)<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Plea Bargaining and Its History |first=Albert W. |last=Alschuler |journal=[[Columbia Law Review|Colum. L. Rev.]] |year=1979 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=1–43 |jstor=1122051 |doi=10.2307/1122051 |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2005&context=journal_articles }}</ref> of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a [[jury trial]].<ref>[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/mcspadden.html Interview with Judge Michael McSpadden] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010131431/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/mcspadden.html |date=2017-10-10 }} PBS interview, December 16, 2003</ref> Plea bargains are subject to the approval of the court, and different states and jurisdictions have different rules. The [[Federal Sentencing Guidelines]] are followed in federal cases and have been created to ensure a standard of uniformity in all cases decided in the federal courts. A two- or three-level offense level reduction is usually available for those who [[accept responsibility]] by not holding the prosecution to the burden of proving its case; this usually amounts to a complete sentence reduction had they gone to trial and lost.<ref>{{Citation|volume=54|publisher=Stan. L. Rev.|page=311|date=2001–2002|title=Apprendi and the Dynamics of Guilty Pleas|author=Bibas, Stephanos|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/stflr54§ion=17|url-status=live|
▲The [[Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]] provide for two main types of plea agreements. An 11(c)(1)(B) agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor's recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw their plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, however, binds the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw their plea.<ref>{{cite web|title=Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 11. Pleas|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11|website=Legal Information Institute|publisher=Cornell Law School|
▲Plea bargains are so common in the [[Superior Courts of California]] (the general trial courts) that the [[Judicial Council of California]] has published an optional seven-page form (containing all mandatory advisements required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce such bargains into written plea agreements.<ref>See [http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf Form CR-101, Plea Form With Explanations and Waiver of Rights-Felony] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091009133217/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/cr101.pdf |date=2009-10-09 }}, [[Judicial Council of California]].</ref>
▲Certain aspects of the American justice system serve to promote plea bargaining. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system puts judges in a passive role, in which they have no independent access to information with which to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The prosecutor and defense may thus control the outcome of a case through plea bargaining. The court must approve a plea bargain as being within the interests of justice.
▲The lack of [[compulsory prosecution]] also gives prosecutors greater discretion as well as the inability of crime victims to mount a [[private prosecution]] and their limited ability to influence plea agreements.<ref>{{Citation|title=The Entrenched Position of Plea Bargaining in United States Legal Practice|author=JE Ross|year=2006|pages=717–732|journal=[[American Journal of Comparative Law]] |volume=54|jstor=20454559|doi=10.1093/ajcl/54.suppl1.717}}</ref> Defendants who are held in custody—who either do not have the right to bail or cannot afford bail, or who do not qualify for release on their own recognizance—may get out of jail immediately following the judge's acceptance of a plea.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Raphling|first1=John|title=Plead guilty, go home. Plead not guilty, stay in jail|url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raphling-bail-20170517-story.html|
▲Generally, once a plea bargain is made and accepted by the courts, the matter is final and cannot be appealed. However, a defendant may withdraw his plea for certain legal reasons,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wispd.org/attachments/article/230/Substantive%20Claims%20and%20New%20Developments%20in%20Appeals%20of%20Plea%20Cases.pdf |title=
===Other common law jurisdictions===
In some common law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the Australian state of [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], plea bargaining is practiced only to the extent that the prosecution and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges or to reduced charges in exchange for the prosecutor withdrawing the remaining or more serious charges. In [[New South Wales]], a 10-25% discount on the sentence is customarily given in exchange for an early guilty plea, but this concession is expected to be granted by the judge as a way of recognizing the utilitarian value of an early guilty plea to the justice system - it is never negotiated with a prosecutor.<ref>{{cite web|title=Guideline judgement of R v Thomson; R v Houlton [200] NSWCCA 309|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCCA/2000/309.html|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|
==Use in civil law countries==
{{More citations needed section|date=January 2009}}
Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]]. This is because, unlike [[common law]] systems, civil law systems have no
===Brazil===
In 2013 Brazil passed a law allowing plea bargains, which have been used in the political corruption trials taking place since then.<ref>{{cite web|title=Brazil|url=https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-role-plea-bargains-the-fight-against-corruption-presentation-brazils-attorney-general|
===Central African Republic===
In the [[Central African Republic]], [[witchcraft]] carries heavy penalties but those accused of it typically confess in exchange for a modest sentence.<ref>{{cite magazine|last1=Wood|first1=Graeme|title=Hex Appeal|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/hex-appeal/308103/|
===China===
In China, a plea bargaining [[pilot scheme]] was introduced by the [[Standing Committee of the National People's Congress]] in 2016.<ref>{{cite news|title=China passes pilot program for plea bargains|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-courts-plea-bargains/china-passes-pilot-program-for-plea-bargains-idUSKCN11904W?il=0|newspaper=Reuters|
===Denmark===
In 2009, in a case about whether witness testimony originating from a plea deal in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal trial ''(297/2008 H)'', the [[Supreme Court (Denmark)|Supreme Court of Denmark]] (Danish: Højesteret) unanimously ruled that plea bargains are ''[[prima facie]]'' not legal under Danish law,<ref name="DSC">{{cite press release |url=http://www.hoejesteret.dk/hoejesteret/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/Pages/Pleabargain.aspx |title=Plea bargain |language=
If a defendant admits to having committed a crime, the prosecution does not have to file charges against them, and the case can be heard as a so-called "admission case" (Danish: ''tilståelsessag'') under {{nowrap|§ 831}} of the [[Administration of Justice Act (Denmark)|Law on the Administration of Justice]] (Danish: ''Retsplejeloven'') provided that: the confession is supported by other pieces of evidence (meaning that a confession is not enough to convict someone on its own); both the defendant and the prosecutor consent to it; the court does not have any objections; §§ 68, 69, 70 and 73 of the penal code do not apply to the case.{{Efn|These sections relate to sentencing of intellectually disabled and mentally ill individuals, as well as indefinite imprisonment.<ref name="danishpenalcode" />}}<ref name="DKADMJUSTICE">{{cite web |url=https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=183537 |title=Retsplejeloven |language=
===Estonia===▼
===France===
The introduction of a limited form of plea bargaining (''comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité'' or CRPC, often summarized as ''plaider coupable'') in 2004 was highly controversial in France. In this system, the public prosecutor could propose to suspects of relatively minor crimes a penalty not exceeding one year in prison; the deal, if accepted, had to be accepted by a judge. Opponents, usually lawyers and [[leftist]] political parties, argued that plea bargaining would greatly infringe on the rights of defense, the long-standing constitutional right of [[presumption of innocence]], the rights of suspects in police custody, and the [[right to a fair trial]].
For instance, [[Robert Badinter]] argued that plea bargaining would give too much power to the public prosecutor and would encourage defendants to accept a sentence only to avoid the risk of a bigger sentence in a trial, even if they did not really deserve it. Only a minority of criminal cases are settled by that method: in 2009, 77,500 out of the 673,700 or 11.5% of the decisions by the correctional courts.<ref>{{cite web|title=Les chiffres-clés de la Justice|url=http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/1_chiffrescles06.pdf|publisher=Ministére de la Justice|date=October 2016|access-date=28 June 2017|url-status=live|
===Georgia===
Plea bargaining (Georgian: საპროცესო შეთანხმება, literally "plea agreement") was introduced in Georgia in 2004. The substance of the Georgian plea bargaining is similar to the United States and other common law jurisdictions.<ref>{{cite web|title=Plea Bargaining Institute in Georgia|url=http://www.justice.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=672&info_id=3605|website=Ministry of Justice of Georgia|
A plea bargaining, also called a plea agreement or negotiated plea, is an alternative and consensual way of criminal case settlement. A plea agreement means settlement of case without main hearing when the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or for a more lenient sentence or for dismissal of certain related charges. (Article 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
Line 147 ⟶ 153:
The main principle of the plea bargaining is that it must be based on the free will of the defendant, equality of the parties and advanced protection of the rights of the defendant:
* In order to avoid fraud of the defendant or insufficient consideration of his or her interests, legislation foresees obligatory participation of the defense council; (Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
* The defendant has the right to reject the plea agreement on any stage of the criminal proceedings before the court renders the judgment. (Article 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
* In case of refusal, it is prohibited to use information provided by the defendant under the plea agreement against him or her in the future. (Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
* The defendant has the right to appeal the judgment rendered consequent to the plea agreement if the plea agreement was concluded by deception, coercion, violence, threat, or violence. (Article 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia)
Line 164 ⟶ 170:
A guilty plea of the defendant is not enough to render a guilty judgment. (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia) Consequently, the court is obliged to discuss two issues:
* Whether irrefutable evidence is presented which proves the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
* Whether the sentence provided for in the plea agreement is legitimate. (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia).
After both criteria are satisfied the court additionally checks whether formalities related to the legislative requirements are followed and only then makes its decision.
Line 179 ⟶ 185:
===Germany===
Plea agreements have made a limited appearance in Germany.<ref>{{Citation|volume=31|publisher=Isr. L. Rev.|page=169|year=1997|title=Converging Criminal Justice Systems: Guilty Pleas and the Public Interest|author=Goldstein, Abraham S.|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/israel31§ion=12|url-status=live|
===Italy===
Italy has a form of bargaining, popularly known as ''patteggiamento'' but that has a technical name of penalty application under request of the parts. In fact, the bargaining is not about the charges, but about the penalty applied in sentence, reduced up to<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Buonomo|first1=Giampiero|title=Sul rapporto tra patteggiamento e condanna penale|url=https://www.academia.edu/11432617|website=Academia.edu|
When the defendant deems that the punishment that would, concretely, be handed down is less than a five-year imprisonment (or that it would just be a fine), the defendant may request to plea bargain with the prosecutor. The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence and has other advantages (such as that the defendant does not pay the fees on the proceeding). The defendant must accept the penalty for the charges (even if the plea-bargained sentence has some particular matters in further compensation proceedings), no matter how serious the charges are.
Line 190 ⟶ 196:
In the request, when it could be applied the conditional suspension of the penalty according to the article 163 and following of the Italian penal code, the defendant could subordinate the request to the grant of the suspension; if the judge rejects the suspension, the bargaining is refused. When both the prosecutor and the defendant have come to an agreement, the proposal is submitted to the judge, who can refuse or accept the plea bargaining.
According to Italian law, a bargain does not need a guilty plea (in Italy there is no plea declaration); for this reason, a bargaining sentence is only an acceptance of the penalty in exchange with the stop of investigation and trial and has no binding cogency in other trials, especially in civil trials in which parts argue of the same facts at the effects of civil liability and in other criminal trials in which are processed the accomplices of the defendant that had requested and got a bargaining sentence.<ref>{{cite web|title=Italian criminal trial|url=http://www.canestrinilex.com/resources/trial/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131220175428/http://www.canestrinilex.com/resources/trial/|url-status=dead|archive-date=20 December 2013|website=Studio Legal Canestrini|
In [[law of Japan|Japan]], plea bargaining was previously forbidden by law, although sources reported that prosecutors illegally offered defendants plea bargains in exchange for their confessions.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Way We Live Now: 9-29-02: Crash Course; Plea Bargain |date=September 29, 2002 |first=Dirk |last=Olin |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-9-29-02-crash-course-plea-bargain.html |
|title=The Japanese Way of Justice : Prosecuting Crime in Japan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qIHNWWx0ZOIC&pg=PA245 |first=David T. |last=Johnson |year=2002 |
|title=International Criminal Procedure: The Interface of Civil Law and Common Law Legal Systems |editor1=Linda Carter |editor2=Fausto Pocar |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kudSfeIbRk0C&pg=PA40 |location=[[London]] |year=2013 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd |page=40 |chapter=Plea bargaining |first=Jenia I. |last=Turner |isbn=9780857939586 |
Plea bargaining was introduced in Japan in June 2018. The first case of plea bargaining under this system, in July 2018, involved allegations of bribery by Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems in Thailand.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/07/21/editorials/japans-first-ever-plea-bargain/|title=Japan's first-ever plea bargain {{!}} The Japan Times|work=The Japan Times|access-date=2018-11-20|language=en-US}}</ref> The second case was a November 2018 deal to obtain evidence of accounting and securities law violations against [[Nissan]] executives [[Carlos Ghosn]] and Greg Kelly.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-20/questions-swirl-over-what-felled-ghosn-as-property-deals-raised|title=Ghosn's Downfall Sparks Questions on Links to Property, Expenses|last=Reidy|first=Gearoid|date=2018-11-19|website=Bloomberg|access-date=2018-11-20}}</ref>▼
Under the Japanese system, formally known as the {{Nihongo|"mutual consultation and agreement system"|協議・合意制度|kyogi-goi seido}}, plea bargaining is available in prosecutions for organized crime, competition law violations, and economic crimes such as securities law violations. The prosecutor, defendant, and defense counsel each sign a written agreement, which must then be admitted into evidence in a public court without delay.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO38740470Q8A211C1000000/|title=日産の司法取引、内容いつ公表？ 米国と異なる制度
===Poland===
Poland also adopted a limited form of plea bargaining, which is applicable only to minor felonies (punishable by no more than 10 years of imprisonment). The procedure is called
There are some specific conditions that have to be simultaneously met:
* the defendant pleads guilty and proposes a penalty,
Line 201 ⟶ 216:
However, the court may object to the terms of proposed plea agreement (even if already agreed between the defendant, victim and prosecutor) and suggest changes (not specific but rather general). If the defendant accepts these suggestions and changes his penalty proposition, the court approves it and passes the verdict according to the plea agreement. In spite of the agreement, all the parties of the trial: prosecution, defendant and the victim as an auxiliary prosecutor (in Poland, the victim may declare that he wants to act as an "auxiliary prosecutor" and consequently gains the rights similar to official prosecutor) - have the right to appeal.{{citation needed|date=June 2017}}
===
Spain has relatively recently adopted a limited form of plea bargaining and the procedure is called a "conformity sentence" meaning the accused is in agreement and can only be used in minor charges but not in serious charges where nine or more years of prison may be imposed.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.conceptosjuridicos.com/sentencia-de-conformidad/ | title=Sentencia de Conformidad: Concepto y requisitos | date=25 February 2019 }}</ref>
▲In [[law of Japan|Japan]], plea bargaining was previously forbidden by law, although sources reported that prosecutors illegally offered defendants plea bargains in exchange for their confessions.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Way We Live Now: 9-29-02: Crash Course; Plea Bargain |date=September 29, 2002 |first=Dirk |last=Olin |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-9-29-02-crash-course-plea-bargain.html |accessdate=February 13, 2014 |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309100704/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-9-29-02-crash-course-plea-bargain.html |archivedate=March 9, 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book
▲|title=The Japanese Way of Justice : Prosecuting Crime in Japan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qIHNWWx0ZOIC&pg=PA245 |first=David T. |last=Johnson |year=2002 |accessdate=February 13, 2014 |isbn=9780195344233 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url=http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2844&context=llr |journal=[[Loyola Law School]] |date=November 14, 2013 |title=Peeking Behind the Plea Bargaining Process: ''Missouri v. Frye'' & ''Lafler v. Cooper'' |accessdate=February 13, 2014 |first=Laurie L. |last=Levenson |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221175643/http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2844&context=llr |archivedate=February 21, 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book
▲|title=International Criminal Procedure: The Interface of Civil Law and Common Law Legal Systems |editor1=Linda Carter |editor2=Fausto Pocar |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kudSfeIbRk0C&pg=PA40 |location=[[London]] |year=2013 |publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd |page=40 |chapter=Plea bargaining |first=Jenia I. |last=Turner |isbn=9780857939586 |accessdate=February 13, 2014 }}</ref>
▲Plea bargaining was introduced in Japan in June 2018. The first case of plea bargaining under this system, in July 2018, involved allegations of bribery by Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems in Thailand.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/07/21/editorials/japans-first-ever-plea-bargain/|title=Japan's first-ever plea bargain {{!}} The Japan Times|work=The Japan Times|access-date=2018-11-20|language=en-US}}</ref> The second case was a November 2018 deal to obtain evidence of accounting and securities law violations against [[Nissan]] executives [[Carlos Ghosn]] and Greg Kelly.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-20/questions-swirl-over-what-felled-ghosn-as-property-deals-raised|title=Ghosn's Downfall Sparks Questions on Links to Property, Expenses|last=Reidy|first=Gearoid|date=2018-11-19|website=Bloomberg|access-date=2018-11-20}}</ref>
▲Under the Japanese system, formally known as the {{Nihongo|"mutual consultation and agreement system"|協議・合意制度|kyogi-goi seido}}, plea bargaining is available in prosecutions for organized crime, competition law violations, and economic crimes such as securities law violations. The prosecutor, defendant, and defense counsel each sign a written agreement, which must then be admitted into evidence in a public court without delay.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXMZO38740470Q8A211C1000000/|title=日産の司法取引、内容いつ公表？ 米国と異なる制度|last=|first=|date=2018-12-11|website=The Nikkei|language=ja|access-date=2018-12-11}}</ref>
==See also==
Line 223 ⟶ 232:
==References==
{{
==External links==
Line 229 ⟶ 238:
{{Criminal procedure}}
{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Plea Bargaining}}
| |||