Plea_bargain

Criminal procedure
Investigating and charging crimes
Criminal investigation
Arrest warrant · Search warrant Probable cause · Knock-and-announce Exigent circumstance Reasonable suspicion Search and seizure · Search of persons Arrest · Detention Right to silence · Miranda warning (U.S.) Grand jury
Criminal prosecution
Statute of limitations · Nolle prosequi Bill of attainder · Ex post facto law Criminal jurisdiction · Extradition Habeas corpus · Bail Inquisitorial system · Adversarial system
Charges and pleas
Arraignment · Information · Indictment Plea · Peremptory plea Nolo contendere (U.S.) · Plea bargain Presentence Investigation
Related areas of law
Criminal defenses Criminal law · Evidence Civil procedure
Portals
Law · Criminal justice

A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal or copping a plea) is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty (and often allocute) or no contest and in some cases to also provide testimony against another person in exchange for some agreement from the prosecutor as to the punishment. A plea bargain can also include the prosecutor agreeing to charge a lesser crime (also called reducing the charges), and dismissing some of the charges against the defendant. In most cases, a plea bargain is used to reduce the number of cases and their aggregate impact on the criminal justice system as the number of cases which can be actually tried by a court system is a fraction of the number of cases filed.

Plea bargainting in common law countries

United States

See also: Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Plea bargaining is a significant part of the criminal justice system in the United States; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trialPlea Bargains Findlaw.comInterview with Judge Michael McSpadden PBS interview, December 16, 2003. 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.

India

Plea bargaining was introduced in India by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced a new chapter XXI (A) in the code which is enforceable from January 11, 2006. This affects cases in which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for seven years; however, offenses affecting the socio-economic condition of the country and offenses committed against a woman or a child below the age of fourteen are excluded.

Pakistan

Plea Bargain as a formal legal provision was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance 1999, an anti-corruption law.Special feature of this plea bargain is that the accused applies for it accepting his guilt and offers to return the proceeds of corruption as determined by investigators/prosecutors. After endorsement by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau the request is presented before the court which decides whether it should be accepted or not. In case the request for plea bargain is accepted by the court, the accused stands convicted but is neither sentenced if in trial nor undergoes any sentence previously pronounced by a lower court if in appeal. He is disqualified to take part in elections, hold any public office, obtain a loan from any bank and is dismissed from service if he is a government official.

Other common law jurisdictions

In some common law jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, and Victoria, Australia, plea bargaining is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defense can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder. The courts in these jurisdictions have made it plain that they will always decide what the appropriate penalty is to be. No bargaining takes place over the penalty.

Plea bargaining in civil law countries

Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea — if the defendant confesses, that confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though he presented a full confession. Also unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Furthermore, many civil law jurists consider the concept of plea bargaining to be abhorrent, seeing it as reducing justice to barter.

France

The introduction of a limited form of plea bargaining (comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité or CRPC, often summarized as plaider coupable) 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, most specifically attorneys and left-wing parties, argued that plea bargaining would gravely 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 incite defendants to accept a sentence simply to avoid the risk of a bigger sentence in a trial, even if they did not really deserve it. Only a small minority of criminal cases are settled by CRPC: in 2005, out of 530000 decisions by correctional courts, only 21000 were CRPC.Les chiffres-clés de la Justice, French Ministry of Justice, October 2006

Estonia

Estonia is another country where plea bargaining has been introduced in the 90s allowing to reduce penalty in exchange for confession and avoiding most of the court proceedings. In that country plea bargaining is permitted for the crimes punishable by no more than 4 years of imprisonment. Normally one fourth reduction of penalty is given.^{[citation needed]}

Italy

In Italy, the procedure of pentito (litt. "he who has repented") was first introduced during the "years of lead" for counter-terrorism purposes, and generalized during the Maxi Trial against the Mafia in 1986-1987. The procedure has been contested, as since pentiti received lighter sentences as long as they supplied information to the magistrates, they have been accused, in some cases, of deliberately misleading the Italian justice.

Criticisms

Some legal scholars argue that plea bargaining is unconstitutional because it takes away a person\'s right to a trial by jury. In fact, Justice Hugo Black once noted that, in America, the defendant “has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process, the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to ‘Prove it!’” By limiting the powers of the police and prosecutors, the Bill of Rights safeguards freedom.http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n3/v26n3-7.pdf, Regulation Magazine, Fall 2003

External links

• Plea bargaining comes into effect-India Law: A new chapter - Chapter XXI A - on `plea bargaining\' has been inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code (1973)

References

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia