Academic literature on the topic 'Administration of Plea bargaining Criminal justice'

Against the panoramic view of the criminal justice reform agenda in Nigeria, the plea bargaining procedure is yet to be fully recognized as a major intervention strategy to deal with the problems in the Nigerian criminal justice administration. This paper therefore conceptualized the concept of plea bargaining. The legal basis for plea, the justifications for plea as well as the merits and demerits of the plea are discussed. The paper also highlights the major problems afflicting criminal justice administration and examines the steps being taken to deal with the problems. The emphasis is on strengthening arguments for a mutual acceptance of plea bargaining as a credible exist strategy by both the state and an alleged offender. The way forward in form of recommendations for the expansion and institutionalization of the practice is also discussed.

Crime, criminals and criminality have always been serious concern for society, state and individuals. Individuals formed society to have protection for his life, property and liberty. Society to bear such liabilities created state which ultimately developed criminal justice system. Hereby, criminal justice system is developed for providing protection to life, liberty and property of individual but in developmental process individual for whose protection criminal justice system was developed, became neglected. Traditionally criminal justice system attempts to protect accused and his interests. Recently demands are made for justice to individual victim who is actual sufferer of crime commission. Recently some measures are created for providing justice to individual victim. Such measures are in process of development, and thereby, for effective justice measure development to provide justice to victim there is a need to make continuous review. Plea bargaining is one such measure recently included in Indian criminal justice system to provide justice to victim. This paper analyses plea bargaining in reference to providing of justice to victim in India. Keywords: Compensation; Criminal justice; Habitual criminal; Plea bargaining; Restorative justice; Sentence; Victim.

Canadian Crown prosecutors enjoy tremendous discretionary power. They can leverage this power during plea bargaining by structuring the terms of plea deals and by engaging in aggressive negotiation tactics, thereby exerting a disproportionate influence on plea bargaining processes and outcomes. This article considers how Crowns should wield their power to shape plea bargains in light of their ethical obligation to seek justice. In particular, it considers how Crowns should identify the just case outcomes they will pursue through plea bargaining and assesses which bargaining strategies they should employ or eschew in pursuit of those outcomes. In the process, the article addresses a few especially thorny questions, including: whether Crowns should ever strategically overcharge defendants to facilitate plea negotiations; how Crowns ought to balance the accuracy of criminal charges against the fairness of criminal sentences when the two are in tension; and how Crowns can strike an appropriate balance between plea bargaining fairness and efficient case management. The article offers several concrete policy recommendations aimed at helping Crowns satisfy their ethical obligation to seek justice in the context of plea bargaining.

Using Professor George Fisher's wonderful new book, Plea Bargaining's Triumph as a springboard and roadmap for a journey into plea bargaining's past and present status, this brief essay will attempt to build a theory accounting for the centrality of plea bargaining in today's—and tomorrow's—criminal justice system. By looking back, Fisher illuminates the present, and suggests a future for plea bargaining in the disposition of the cases. His analysis ends with “plea bargaining's triumph;” with its emergence as the single most important (and powerful) factor in the disposition of criminal cases. I will applaud, but qualify his arguments and speculate about “plea bargaining's future.” His looking back, led him to conclude that plea bargaining coopted or caused most criminal justice innovations of the past two decades, and that almost anthropomorphically, it emerged victorious. His understanding of the “causes” of plea bargaining's centrality deserves applause along with qualification; his painting of a picture of plea bargaining “victory” is correct, and is fruitfully linked to a future informed by his understanding of a past.First, some general ground rules for what I will and will not do in this essay. I will not systematically or exhaustively summarize Fisher's arguments, nor will I referee the disagreements he surfaced with the respect to the work of many major studies of plea bargaining and its history. Suffice it to say that this is a very careful historical study of the origins of plea bargaining, and that it primarily relies on a very detailed and very, very careful analysis of the court records of Middlesex County, Mass., mostly for cases disposed of in the 19th century. Based on these data, and secondary analyses of data from studies of plea bargaining in other jurisdictions, Fisher builds a theory of the growth of plea bargaining that is sometimes original, always engaging, and inevitably provocative. Though I take issue with some of his arguments, he must be lauded for the care and clarity of his presentation, and for the enormous literature he uses to develop and support his case.

During peacetime, no nation envisions that its people could ever succumb to genocide. Therefore, when a justice system never anticipated the challenge of prosecuting all perpetrators of genocide, the judicial institutions struggle of fitting the ‘round peg’ of these countless heinous crimes into the ‘square hole’ of an unprepared criminal justice system. Thus, this article turns to the extensive use of plea bargaining as a potential solution to this problem, using the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) as an example of a nascent criminal justice system developing in the wake of mass atrocity. Since plea bargaining has the potential to offer victims greater retribution and reconciliation if they see their perpetrators processed through the criminal justice system in some capacity rather than not at all, I propose that if administered cautiously and within an informed community, increasing plea bargaining in BiH could contribute positively to rebuilding the community.

Objective - This paper aims to examine the role of judges and the reality of the plea-bargaining process from the perspective of the judiciary, focusing primarily on their perceptions on the new law and their role and the problems facing them in implementing the law. Methodology/Technique - This paper adopts a qualitative methodology, in which the primary data is obtained from semi-structured interviews with 20 respondents comprising of the stakeholders in the criminal justice system. The secondary data is obtained from analysing the CPC and other library-based sources. Findings - The research reveals that judges are facing some problems derived from the law itself which makes the new plea-bargaining process unappealing to them. Consequently, judges have invented their solutions either by reverting to the old practice or imposing on the parties their terms in disposing of the case through judge-prompted plea-bargain. Novelty - This paper is significant in providing some evidence of the procedural difficulties faced by judges in hearing plea-bargaining application at the pre-trial stage. Type of Paper - Review Keywords: Criminal Procedure; Judiciary; Pre-trial Stage; Plea-Bargaining Process; Plea of Guilty. JEL Classification: K40, K49

One way to assist law enforces to prevent and combat crime is to involve justice collaborators. Justice collaborators are crucial in assisting law enforcers to expose perpetrators of organized crime as well as transnational crimes. The lack of a legal regime that provides rights to a justice collaborator will impact the interest of a person to become a justice collaborator. Legal protection for justice collaborators must also include protection to his/her family both physically and psychologically. One method of appreciation that can be given to justice collaborators is through the special treatment of criminal offences. One form of special treatment in regards to criminal cases involving justice collaborators within the criminal judiciary may utilize the plea bargaining approach as a method of legal protection towards justice collaborators. To make more efficient the process of determining criminal sanctions to justice collaborators will contribute to the legal certainties owed to justice collaborates as a rightful reward of their contribution in extraordinary crimes. The criminal judicial system that utilized the plea bargaining approach for justice collaborators has the advantage of the absence of criminal examinations.

Abstract Criminal proceedings in many European states are increasingly being resolved via plea bargaining agreements; yet, there is relatively scant European research on the implications for the defendant or the role this practice plays within the criminal justice system. Using a sample of 1417 criminal cases, this paper examines how suspended prison sentences may be utilized in Spain to encourage or coerce defendants into a guilty plea. In addition to more traditional regression analysis, covariates are controlled through an entropy balancing process. The findings show defendants who agree a plea deal are indeed less likely to enter prison, which has profound implications for criminal justice in Spain and beyond. On the one hand, it appears plea bargaining is being used to improve the efficiency of the system and, thus, maintain its very existence. On the other hand, issues regarding false confessions and sentencing disparities are specifically highlighted.

This Article aims to overview procedural grounds in the Lithuanian criminal justice system that relate to the concepts of simplified and negotiated justice, in particular to the concept of plea bargaining. Specifically, the research seeks to examine the procedures of simplified examination of evidence in court, accelerated proceedings and the procedure of penal order as foreseen in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the CCP). This research aims to highlight similarities between the aforementioned procedures and the concept of plea bargaining.

The standard form of disposition for most English and American criminal cases is the guilty plea, by means of a plea bargain. Jury trials are the rare exception rather than the rule. Although plea bargaining is the subject of a huge scholarly literature analyzing its nature and functioning, there is a much smaller literature on its origins and development. Most of the literature is highly critical, and much of it rests upon a belief that bureaucratic justice has come to replace the vigorous adversarial jury trial. Some critics lament “our vanishing jury”. Others decry the rise of “technocratic justice”. And still others warn that we are witnessing the “twilight of the adversary process”, or the decline of the adversary system. Even those who defend plea bargaining, such as justices on the United States Supreme Court, tend to regard it as a “necessary evil” required as an expedient to cope with the rising tide of caseloads rather than an ideal process.Despite important differences of emphasis among these and still other commentators, most share an important commonalty; they adopt a form of functional analysis that understands plea bargaining as an adaptation to caseload pressures. Hence the power of the metaphor “the twilight” of the adversary process. This assessment seems plausible in light of pervasive plea bargaining and the crush of caseloads in American and English courts.

La politique criminelle est liée à un mode de fonctionnement particulier rattaché aux différences conceptuelles et structurelles des systèmes pénaux. Ainsi les solutions au phénomène criminel sont spécifiques à un mode de construction sociale dont la cohérence et l’efficience exigent la compatibilité de la conception de la politique criminelle avec le système pénal.La construction d’une justice pénale se distingue par sa configuration exclusive et par une lecture particulière des institutions qui la compose. Elle se réalise à travers un enchainement intellectuel spécifique qui intègre sa filiation historique, politique et sociale pour former un ensemble de références communes<br>The conceptual and structural differences between penal systems and the operating mode of the criminal policies linked to these differences.The solutions to the criminal phenomenon are specific to a social construction model, which its consistency and efficiency require the compatibility of the criminal policy and the penal system.The construction of a criminal justice is distinguished by the exclusivity of its configuration and by a particular lecture of its institutions. It is performed throw an intellectual chaining that incorporates its historical, political and social filiations to realize a set of common references

L’analyse des procédures de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité en droit français et en droit anglais peut, de prime abord, sembler poser un certain nombre de difficultés. En effet les modèles inquisitoire et accusatoire de justice pénale, de par leurs spécificités, ne paraissent se prêter que difficilement à une telle étude comparée. Cependant cette affirmation n’est plus à l’heure actuelle, en raison notamment de la construction européenne, entièrement exacte. Les modèles de justice pénale dans la plupart des Etats de droit ne répondent plus à la dichotomie initialement posée et tendent progressivement à converger vers un modèle commun au sein de procédures pénales mixtes fondées essentiellement sur les principes du contradictoire et du procès équitable. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il convient de se pencher sur la notion de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité. Celle-ci tend à s’affirmer au gré des réformes législatives, devenant ainsi un véritable outil de politique criminelle visant à davantage d’efficacité de la procédure pénale, par une plus grande célérité dans le traitement des affaires pénales. Toutefois, en France comme en Angleterre, le recours croissant aux procédures de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité nécessite une modification structurelle et organisationnelle de la justice pénale. En conséquence et s’agissant de l’évolution globale des systèmes de justice pénale, une tendance générale se profile érigeant l’autorité des poursuites au rang de pivot central du processus judiciaire. Des garanties doivent donc être offertes afin de conserver une procédure pénale d’équilibre, à la fois efficace et légitime<br>The analysis of guilty plea procedures, in French and English laws, seems, on a prima facie ground, to raise some issues. The inquisitorial and the accusatorial model of criminal justice do not, due to their respective specificities, easily leave a breathing space for any comparative study. Yet, taking into account the European expansion, this assertion does not remain, nowadays, entirely true. Models of criminal justice, in most States governed by the rule of law, do not longer meet the initial dichotomy and gradually tend to be unified towards a standard model within “mixed” criminal justice systems essentially based on the adversarial and fair trial principles. In this perspective, the notion of pre guilty plea needs to be clarified. This notion asserts itself alongside with legislative reforms, thus becoming a genuine tool of criminal policy aiming at a better efficiency in the criminal process through a more prompt handling of criminal offences. Nevertheless, both in France and in England, the increasing resort to pre-guilty plea procedures requires a structural and organisational modification of criminal justice. As a consequence and regarding the global evolution of criminal justice systems, a general tendency has emerged introducing Public Prosecution authorities as the linchpin of the process. Safeguards should be provided in order to maintain a well-balanced criminal justice process, both efficient and legitimate

Malgré le peu de fondements écrits consacrés à la justice dans le texte de la Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, le Conseil constitutionnel, en réalisant un travail d’actualisation à partir de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, a permis l’émergence d’un droit constitutionnel processuel, construit autour de principes directeurs. Ceux-ci peuvent être répartis dans trois catégories : deux principales, selon que l’acteur du procès prioritairement concerné soit le juge ou les parties et une troisième, complémentaire, celle des garanties procédurales, permettant de favoriser les qualités essentielles du juge et de contrôler le respect des droits des parties. Une gradation des exigences du Conseil constitutionnel est discrètement perceptible entre les deux premières catégories de principes, plus facilement identifiable entre celles-ci et la dernière famille. Cette échelle décroissante de « densité » des principes directeurs du procès témoigne d’une véritable politique jurisprudentielle en matière de droit constitutionnel processuel, qui met l’accent sur l’accès au juge, doté des qualités indispensables à l’accomplissement de sa mission juridictionnelle. Toutefois, aussi satisfaisante que soit l’action du juge constitutionnel français à l’égard du droit du procès, celle-ci nécessiterait aujourd’hui le relais du constituant, afin de moderniser le statut constitutionnel de la justice<br>In spite of a relatively low number of written dispositions dedicated to justice inside of the body of the Constitution of October 1958 4th, the constitutional Council, while updating this text through the Declaration of Human Rights, contributed to the development of a procedural constitutional law, which is structured around guiding principles. Those principles can be classified within three different categories : two major categories depend on the trial actor that is primarily concerned, either the judge or the parties; a third and additional category pertaining to procedural protections, fosters the essential qualities of the judge and secure the protection of the parties’ rights. A gradation of the requirements of the constitutional Council is discreetly perceptible between the first two categories of principles, and more easily identifiable between those first two categories and the last one. This decreasing scale of “density” yoked to the trial guiding principles highlights a genuine judicial policy when it comes to procedural constitutional law, emphasizing access to the judge, whom is given essential qualities in order to achieve its judicial duty. However, the action of the French constitutional judge, as satisfactory as it is towards the rights of the trial, would easily support the intervention of the constituent power in order to update Justice’s constitutional status

论文对中国的刑事和解制度进行了实证研究。刑事和解被官方视为通过加害方同受害方自愿达成和解促进社会和谐，并通过赋予案件当事人解决案件的权力实现“案结事了。这一程序也被认为弥补了以对抗制为基础的普通刑事司法程序的所谓的不足。<br>基于2008年和2010年在中国三个地区进行的案卷调查和访谈，论文指出这项制度严重侵害犯罪嫌疑人、被告人及被害人（统称“当事人）的权利并损害公平正义。虽然案卷显示刑事和解遵循为其设计的程序及确立的原则并取得了良好效果，访谈却揭示了完全相反的情况。访谈显示，自愿性，这一被视为刑事和解的主要优势的原则，遭到严重破坏。实践中，官员们主导着刑事和解全过程。此外，赔偿成为了这一程序的唯一焦点，造成其对经济上处于弱势地位的犯罪嫌疑人或被告人的不公平。研究发现在一些案件中，刑事和解程序结束后，矛盾依然存在甚至恶化了。<br>这些发现令刑事和解呈现出中国刑事司法制度的三个根本性问题。首先，保护当事人权利的法律规则常常被执行这些规则的法官或检察官忽视并取而代之“潜规则。 这些“潜规则主要是由政治目标驱动的绩效考核标准和来自诸如政法委的其他组织的干预而形成。此外，中国的刑事司法程序反映了专制主义、家长制及教育型（以思想改造为目的）的刑事司法体制，而当事人的权利被视为次于这一政治目的。最后，国家在保护当事人获得刑事附带民事诉讼赔偿的权利方面亦未承担应负的责任。<br>论文指出，依靠和解来解决刑事案件会令这些已影响普通刑事司法程序的问题更加严重，因为这一程序旨在弱化对程序性权利的保障及削弱刑事司法程序的对抗性。因此，刑事和解制度或是中国正逐渐远离其领导者曾明确确立的法治目标的一个信号。<br>This thesis examines the practice of ‘criminal reconciliation’ (xingshi hejie) in the People’s Republic of China by means of empirical research. ‘Criminal reconciliation’ is officially understood as a mechanism to promote a ‘harmonious society’ (hexie shehui) through voluntary offender-victim reconciliation and bringing ‘closure’ (an jie shi liao) to criminal case in a way that empowers the parties. It has been designed as a mechanism that overcomes perceived deficiencies of the ordinary, in principle adversarial criminal justice process.<br>Based on case examples and interviews conducted in three localities in mainland China in 2008 and 2010, however, this thesis argues that this mechanism may infringe the rights of suspects and defendants as well as of alleged victims (summarily referred to as ‘the parties’) in criminal cases, and that it may lead to injustice. While the case files accessed for the purpose of this research purport to document a well-functioning process of criminal reconciliation in accordance with the rules and principles supposed to govern it, interviews provide a drastically different picture. In practice, the criminal justice process was not characterized by the principle of voluntariness supposed to be one of its main advantages; rather, the officials in charge dominated the process. In addition, the entire process exclusively focused on compensation, so it was potentially unfair to economically weak suspects and defendants. It was also found in some cases that the conflict between the parties still existed or had worsened at the end of the criminal reconciliation programmes.<br>On the basis of these findings, it is argued that criminal reconciliation throws light on fundamental problems with the wider criminal justice system. First, officials in the criminal justice system, routinely ignore certain legal rules protecting the parties’ rights and to some extent replace these rules with ‘hidden rules’ (qian guize), whose content is largely shaped by politically driven performance assessment criteria, as well as in some cases by intervention from other entities such the Political-Legal Committee. Second, the criminal proceedings in China reflect an authoritarian, paternalistic and educational (thought-reform-based) approach to criminal justice; the parties’ rights are regarded as secondary to this political end. Third, the State does not take sufficient responsibility to protect the victim’s right to get compensation in the civil litigation collateral to criminal proceedings.<br>In conclusion, this thesis argues that resolving criminal cases through ‘criminal reconciliation’ may aggravate the problems already affecting the ordinary criminal justice process, because it is a mechanism designed to weaken procedural rights protections, and eliminate the adversarial character of the criminal justice process. Thus the promotion of ‘criminal reconciliation’ may be one of several signs that China is deviating from the path of rule of law development that was once the leadership’s clearly stated goal.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Detailed summary in vernacular field only.<br>Jiang, Jue.<br>"December 2012."<br>Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013.<br>Includes bibliographical references.<br>Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web.<br>Abstract and appendixes also in Chinese.<br>Chapter Chapter I: --- The Criminal Reconciliation System (xingshi hejie) In China --- p.1<br>Chapter 1.1 --- The idea of ‘criminal reconciliation’ (xingshi hejie) --- p.4<br>Chapter 1.2 --- The implementation of criminal reconciliation --- p.15<br>Chapter 1.2.1 --- The procedure and scope of application of criminal reconciliation --- p.16<br>Chapter 1.2.2 --- Criminal reconciliation and the normal criminal procedure --- p.24<br>Chapter 1.2.3 --- The involvement of lawyers in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.27<br>Chapter 1.2.4 --- Different criminal reconciliation practices nationwide --- p.29<br>Chapter 1.3 --- Further reported practices in criminal reconciliation --- p.40<br>Chapter 1.3.1 --- Practice of criminal reconciliation outside its stipulated scope --- p.42<br>Chapter 1.3.2 --- Cooperation among authorities: ‘duijie’ and ‘liandong’ mechanisms --- p.43<br>Chapter 1.3.3 --- Wider involvement of participants in criminal reconciliation --- p.46<br>Chapter 1.4 --- Summary --- p.48<br>Chapter Chapter II: --- The Scholarly Debate Around Criminal Reconciliation --- p.51<br>Chapter 2.1 --- Scholarly debates of criminal reconciliation practices --- p.52<br>Chapter 2.1.1 --- Positive appraisals --- p.52<br>Chapter 2.1.2 --- Criticisms --- p.60<br>Chapter 2.1.3 --- The debate concerning uses of criminal reconciliation outside its stipulated scope --- p.66<br>Chapter 2.1.4 --- The debate concerning lawyers’ role in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.68<br>Chapter 2.2 --- Scholarly debates of justifications for criminal reconciliation --- p.70<br>Chapter 2.2.1 --- Differences between criminal reconciliation and restorative justice --- p.72<br>Chapter 2.2.2 --- A critique of the theory of ‘private cooperation’ (sili hezuo) --- p.77<br>Chapter 2.2.3 --- A critique of the theory of ‘third realm’ (di san lingyu) --- p.79<br>Chapter 2.2.4 --- A critique of the theory of ‘civil mediation’ --- p.88<br>Chapter 2.3 --- Summary --- p.89<br>Chapter Chapter III: --- Criminal Reconciliation In Practice: Evidence From Official Case Files --- p.91<br>Chapter 3.1 --- The motivation for the empirical study --- p.91<br>Chapter 3.1.1 --- The deficiencies of doctrinal research --- p.91<br>Chapter 3.1.2 --- Existing empirical studies: findings and remaining concerns --- p.94<br>Chapter 3.2 --- An overview of criminal reconciliation practices in the three fieldwork locations --- p.100<br>Chapter 3.2.1 --- Selection of cases --- p.101<br>Chapter 3.2.2 --- The basic statistical facts --- p.103<br>Chapter 3.2.3 --- The cases eligible for criminal reconciliation --- p.105<br>Chapter 3.2.4 --- The suspects/defendants eligible for criminal reconciliation --- p.106<br>Chapter 3.2.5 --- The procedure of criminal reconciliation and follow-up programmes --- p.-106<br>Chapter 3.2.6 --- Duration of criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.127<br>Chapter 3.3 --- An analysis of the practice of criminal reconciliation relying on the evidence from official case files --- p.138<br>Chapter 3.3.1 --- The procedure of criminal reconciliation in practice --- p.138<br>Chapter 3.3.2 --- Achievements and failures of the official goals in practice --- p.141<br>Chapter 3.3.3 --- Questioning the official design of the criminal reconciliation procedure --- p.143<br>Chapter 3.3.4 --- Conflicting official goals --- p.145<br>Chapter Chapter IV: --- The Process Of Criminal Reconciliation Programmes: Evidence From Interviews --- p.147<br>Chapter 4.1 --- The initiation stage --- p.148<br>Chapter 4.1.1 --- Violations of eligibility requirements --- p.148<br>Chapter 4.1.2 --- No presumption of innocence --- p.155<br>Chapter 4.1.3 --- Violations of the principle of voluntariness --- p.156<br>Chapter 4.2 --- The criminal reconciliation meeting --- p.162<br>Chapter 4.2.1 --- Appropriate communication between the parties in some reconciliation meetings --- p.163<br>Chapter 4.2.2 --- Focus on bargaining over compensation --- p.166<br>Chapter 4.2.3 --- Private agreement reached prior to the formal reconciliation meeting --- p.-171<br>Chapter 4.2.4 --- Pressures on the parties to reach agreements --- p.172<br>Chapter 4.2.5 --- Compensation as the main content of criminal reconciliation agreements --- p.173<br>Chapter 4.2.6 --- Clauses added by officials into criminal reconciliation agreements --- p.174<br>Chapter 4.3 --- Factors affecting official decisions in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.175<br>Chapter 4.3.1 --- Focus on fulfillment of compensation obligations --- p.175<br>Chapter 4.3.2 --- The lack of judicial independence --- p.179<br>Chapter 4.4 --- Insights into follow-up programmes --- p.182<br>Chapter 4.4.1 --- Limited substantiation of findings in case file examination --- p.182<br>Chapter 4.4.2 --- The effects and problems of the follow-up programmes --- p.185<br>Chapter 4.4.3 --- The potential failure of the official aim of correcting the suspect/defendant in criminal reconciliation cases without follow-up programmes --- p.186<br>Chapter 4.5 --- Summary --- p.187<br>Chapter Chapter V: --- The Participants Of Criminal Reconciliation Programmes: Evidence From Interviews --- p.191<br>Chapter 5.1 --- Official involvement in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.191<br>Chapter 5.1.1 --- Officials’ leading and dominant role --- p.192<br>Chapter 5.1.2 --- Officials’ positive comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.200<br>Chapter 5.1.3 --- Officials’ negative comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.203<br>Chapter 5.1.4 --- Officials’ expressed concerns about criminal reconciliation --- p.205<br>Chapter 5.1.5 --- Difficulties faced by officials in charge of criminal reconciliation --- p.208<br>Chapter 5.2 --- The parties participating in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.213<br>Chapter 5.2.1 --- The victim’s participation under coercion --- p.213<br>Chapter 5.2.2 --- No presumption of innocence --- p.218<br>Chapter 5.2.3 --- Active roles for parties only in private reconciliation --- p.222<br>Chapter 5.2.4 --- The parties’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.225<br>Chapter 5.2.5 --- The parties’ difficulties in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.229<br>Chapter 5.3 --- The lawyers as actors (participants) in criminal reconciliation cases --- p.232<br>Chapter 5.3.1 --- Lawyers’ role as mediators between officials and the parties --- p.232<br>Chapter 5.3.2 --- Some lawyers’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.235<br>Chapter 5.4 --- The role of other participants in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.237<br>Chapter 5.4.1 --- Serving officials’ purposes --- p.238<br>Chapter 5.4.2 --- Other participants’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.239<br>Chapter 5.5 --- Summary --- p.241<br>Chapter Chapter VI: --- Understanding Wider Problems in the Criminal Justice System through the Lens of Criminal Reconciliation --- p.245<br>Chapter 6.1 --- Contradictory rules and ‘hidden rules’ (qian guize) --- p.246<br>Chapter 6.1.1 --- The prevalence of ‘hidden rules’ and ‘parallel systems’ --- p.247<br>Chapter 6.1.2 --- Internal and external pressures as the reason for ‘hidden rules’ and ‘parallel systems’ --- p.248<br>Chapter 6.1.3 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.261<br>Chapter 6.2 --- Criminal justice through ‘correction’ (jiaozheng) and ‘thought reform’ (sixiang gaizao) --- p.263<br>Chapter 6.2.1 --- The concept of ‘correction’ in the wider criminal process --- p.264<br>Chapter 6.2.2 --- The ideology of ‘thought reform’ underlying ‘correction’ --- p.271<br>Chapter 6.2.3 --- A critique of thought reform --- p.274<br>Chapter 6.2.4 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.277<br>Chapter 6.3 --- The State’s failure to enforce victims’ claims to compensation through civil litigation --- p.278<br>Chapter 6.3.1 --- The reason leading to the problem with enforceability --- p.280<br>Chapter 6.3.2 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.282<br>Chapter Chapter VII: --- Conclusion --- p.283<br>Chapter Appendix I --- Sentencing Normalization Form of the Criminal Division of B District People’s Court [in Xi’an] --- p.288<br>Chapter Appendix II --- Article 277-279 of The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2012 Revision) --- p.291<br>Chapter Appendix III --- Chapter 21of Supreme People’s Court Judicial Interpretation on Some Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law (Draft Issued to Solicit Opinions) --- p.293<br>Chapter Appendix IV --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the Handling of Minor Criminal Cases When the Parties Have Reached Reconciliation --- p.302<br>Chapter Appendix V --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Combining Severity with Leniency in Procuratorial work --- p.314<br>Chapter Appendix VI --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Combining Severity with Leniency --- p.335<br>Bibliography --- p.368

Abstract It is often stated that plea-bargaining is an indispensable part of a fair and efficient criminal justice system. By observing sentencing hearings in the Provincial Court of Manitoba this thesis shows that some form of plea bargaining is involved in a substantial majority of cases. Almost half of these plea bargained matters resulted in joint recommendations on sentence. However, the vast majority of these joint recommendations did not involve a true plea bargain. In this limited study, it was observed that the presiding judge accepted all joint recommendations as presented by counsel. One of the goals of plea bargaining is to arrive at joint recommendations on sentence. Though lawyers on both sides of the courtroom may perceive an advantage to joint recommendations, for the accused these advantages may be illusory. Judges routinely accept joint recommendations despite not being the progeny of true plea bargains involving a quid pro quo. This research suggests that the vast majority of joint recommendations are born of cultural expedience rather than as a result of true plea bargains. These cultural joint recommendations encroach significantly on the judicial function and may erode public confidence in the administration of justice. The continued proliferation of cultural joint recommendations may further entrench a culture of expedience in our criminal justice system and could potentially lead to higher sentences for offenders.

Role of Plea Bargainingin the US The aim of this thesis is to explain to the reader the term Plea Bargaining, to explain the principles of this legal institute and its role in the penal system of the United States of America. The Author does not only describe the Plea Bargaining, but also analyses the institute thoroughly, accenting its positive and negative aspects, considering the point of view of the particular participants of the process. Last but not least, the thesis contains the author's critical evaluation. The institute of Plea Bargaining appears in the common law system from the second half of the nineteenth century, while evincing a quantitative growth in the long term. Currently, it is being used in the absolute majority of penal proceedings, and a change in this trend can in no way be expected in the closest future - therefore, this institute shall be considered as absolutely indispensable for the law of the United States of America. Despite its wide use, its application also gives rise to negative emotions. Relatively often, there are opinions appearing, questioning its legitimacy and legality, for Plea Bargaining is not regulated in the statute law and is not only directly contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, but also to multiple international treaties on...

The cruelty and scope of the widespread criminality of humans in the world, which was a feature of the past century, was fuelled by scientific progress, egoism and humanity's power of destruction. The criminal consequences of the many imperialistic, hegemonic and barbarous wars in that century were immeasurable in terms of violations of human rights. Notwithstanding the emergence of international criminal justice through the experience of the International Criminal Military Tribunal of Nuremberg and Tokyo and later the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, globally, impunity for egregious crimes continues. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the end of the 20th century was saluted as a major step forward in the evolution of international criminal justice. While previous tribunals were ad hoc, the ICC is permanent and has large territorial jurisdiction. This raises hope among the many Congolese victims of the first African World War, who view the ICC as a paradigm change that will put a stop to impunity for crimes against humanity and the crimes of genocide and war. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the past decades have been marked by instability and horrible armed conflicts (1996-97 and 1998-2003) which left several million people dead, and which were marked by gross war crimes. The negative consequences of those atrocities persist until today. While the ICC initiated the prosecution of some war criminals in 2004, most crimes committed before 2002 remain unpunished, because the ICC's jurisdiction is limited to after that time. It is therefore imperative to examine other mechanisms to deal with impunity for various grave crimes, including war crimes, perpetrated between 1996 and 2002. Thus the aim of this research is to contribute to the fight against impunity for crimes in the DRC by examining how other modes of jurisdiction such as the principle of universality can be applied, and to assess the need for the establishment of a specific tribunal for the DRC. Considering the inability and incapacity of the Congolese judicial apparatus, this study concludes by recommending the establishment of a Special Criminal Tribunal which can put an end to impunity for serious crimes committed in the DRC.<br>Thesis (LL.M.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2012.

As with adult criminal court cases, almost all juvenile and criminal court cases involving youth are resolved by guilty plea. This chapter reviews the extant research on youth defendants and guilty pleas. The focus is on three areas: (1) the circumstances surrounding guilty plea decisions (e.g., access to attorneys, time to make decisions); (2) youths’ knowledge about guilty plea decisions and whether they are made voluntarily; and (3) the rationales underlying guilty plea decisions. Additionally, across these three areas the chapter addresses plea decision-making by guilty and innocent juvenile defendants, highlighting the similarities and differences. The chapter concludes with a call for future research and implications for juveniles involved in the juvenile or adult criminal justice systems.

This chapter examines whether the combination of laws, policies, and procedures of different prosecuting and enforcement agencies is fair and effective, and why an overwhelming proportion of defendants plead guilty. It discusses the respective roles of the police and Crown Prosecution Service in prosecution decision-making; how cases are constructed for prosecution; the criteria for prosecution decision-making; diversion from prosecution; review of prosecution decisions; the different treatment of ‘regulatory’ offences and ‘real’ crime; the roles of police, prosecutors, judges and defence lawyers in persuading defendants to plead guilty; the incentives, even for the innocent, to plead guilty; whether plea bargaining should be abolished.

This chapter introduces the reader to plea bargaining. The chapter begins with a discussion of the mechanics of plea bargaining and the dominant forms of plea bargaining in the United States’ criminal justice system. In doing so, the chapter examines the manner in which defendants engage in bargaining and the shadow-of-trial model of bargaining. The chapter then discusses the historical rise of plea bargaining in the United States and considers whether today’s plea bargains reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s vision of the system as laid down in the case of Brady v. United States in 1970 (Brady v. United States, 1970). Finally, the chapter concludes by briefly examining several recent Supreme Court plea bargaining cases and considers whether a renewed focus on plea bargaining jurisprudence is materializing.