Prosecutors should never lay more charges than is necessary to encourage an accused to plead guilty to a few of them. Similarly, they should never pursue a more serious charge for the sole purpose of encouraging an accused to admit less serious guilt. [10] Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown may agree to withdraw certain charges against the accused in exchange for an admission of guilt. It has become a standard procedure for certain offences such as obstruction of driving. In the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed summarily or by charge before the accused makes his or her plea. If the Crown chooses to proceed summarily and the accused then pleads not guilty, the Crown cannot change its choice. As a result, the Crown is not in a position to offer summary proceedings in exchange for an admission of guilt. Plea`s agreements appeared only in a limited way in Germany. [50] However, an admission of guilt in the German criminal proceedings is not exactly equivalent.

[51] The oral arguments were introduced in Japan in June 2018. The first plea case under the scheme, in July 2018, involved charges of bribery of Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems in Thailand. [58] The second case was an agreement reached in November 2018 to obtain evidence of violations of accounting law and securities against Nissan executives Carlos Ghosn and Greg Kelly. [59] A plea allows both parties to avoid lengthy criminal proceedings and may allow the accused to avoid the risk of a conviction in court on a more serious charge. In the U.S. legal order, for example, an accused who is charged with theft and whose conviction would require a prison sentence in the state prison may have the opportunity to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of theft that cannot be punishable by imprisonment. In civil legal systems, haggling is extremely difficult. Unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no recourse if the defendant confesses; a confession is in evidence, but the prosecutor is not exempt from the requirement to present a full case. A court may decide that an accused is innocent, even if he or she has made a full confession. Unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may not have the power to drop or reduce costs after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce costs before a case is filed is limited, making oral arguments impossible.

Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for oral arguments. [39] In Japan, oral arguments were previously prohibited by law, although sources reported that prosecutors offered unlawful arguments to the accused in exchange for their confessions. [54] [55] [56] [57] In 2013, Brazil passed a law authorizing oral arguments that have since been used in political corruption processes. [40] In particular for Canadian justice, it is possible to continue negotiations on the final decision of a criminal proceeding, even after the sentencing.

You may also like