Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Plea bargaining'

The present criminal justice systems face challenges in the modern world characterized by the development of new technologies, fast communication, and the interconnection of different and distant parts of the world; in simple terms the challenges of the Earth becoming “a global village.” This causes crime to be more complex and to grow, and consequently criminal justice systems are being burdened with new types of problems. In this context, systems are forced to try to deal with criminal cases in a more efficient and faster way, to define priorities and look for alternatives to the classical trial which requires significant time, effort and resources. One of these alternative ways is plea agreements, or as is more commonly said plea bargaining. This legal instrument is present in its different forms in a number of national legal systems, as well as in international law. This work deals with its development, application and potential future in Montenegro. First, the key features and principles of plea bargaining as a legal institution are presented in this work, demonstrating its strongest and most complex presence in the United States as the country of its origin, but also in other countries and in international law. After that, the thesis deals with the development, regulation, as well as the extent of the presence of plea bargaining practices in Montenegro, at the same time providing a comparison with two neighboring counties, Serbia and Croatia. Furthermore, through a number of interviews conducted with Montenegrin prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges as the main actors in this process, the thesis focuses on discovering how the practice functions in reality, and what hides behind the relatively simple legal provisions that regulate this issue. After identifying the key, very interesting, issues that emerge from practical experience, the thesis presents the relevant implications for the future, and a number of related conclusions and recommendations.

Plea bargaining is frequently regarded as a deeply troublesome phenomenon. A negative view of plea bargaining is widely held, yet seems often to be little more than received knowledge. With this in mind, this dissertation reassesses plea bargaining to ask whether in some circumstances, the process might in fact be justifiable, or at least preferable to the traditional model of trial which it subverts; and if so, under what conditions. It also examines the dynamics of the bargaining process, and how these are shaped, in order to ask whether there are any aspects of plea bargaining as negotiation which could be developed to make this form of criminal case resolution more just and acceptable. Part One provides a theoretical picture of the plea bargain. An introductory chapter suggests two useful outlooks on plea bargaining as an instance of dispute handling, and as a negotiated process. Chapter Two takes an external perspective, locating negotiation within the ecology of disputing processes more generally. Chapter Three moves to an internal perspective, in order to examine the actual dynamics of plea bargaining decision-making. Part Two turns to the outcome, process, and organisational values of plea bargaining. Amongst other things, the discussion addresses various pervasive critiques of the practice, such as that it results in like cases being treated differently; that it is coercive; and that it is a mere vehicle of efficiency. A third and final part (Chapter Eight) draws some conclusions about plea bargaining. I suggest that plea bargaining may in fact be justifiable in some circumstances, and offer some prescriptions for the satisfactory running of systems of negotiated justice (many of which are pertinent whether plea bargaining is officially favoured or not). I also comment on themes emerging from the thesis which are larger than the particular issue of plea bargaining, such as informality and discretion within criminal justice systems, and the need for theoretical synthesis of existing empirical research relevant to a given phenomenon.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.
Bibliography
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Plea bargaining describes the act of negotiating and concluding agreements in the criminal procedure. Usually the prosecutor and the accused agree that the accused will plead guilty to the charge brought against him in exchange for some concession from the prosecution. The bargain is not limited to the presented subject. Agreements can contain the non-prosecution or reduction of charges, specific terms of punishment, conditions of probation and much more. In many countries the vast majority of criminal cases are disposed by way of bargaining. Plea bargaining breaches with the concept of a conventional trial and consequently clashes with well-known fundamental principles of the criminal procedure. Moreover, bargaining before criminal trials strongly implicates the constitutionally secured rights of the accused as well as of the public interest. Although plea bargaining is broadly criticized for its implications on essential rules and principles, the use of the practice is widespread. There are clear benefits to the participant, such as to avoid a lengthy trial with an uncertain outcome. South Africa, as a legal system with roots in the common law, adopted the procedure in 2001 with the implementation of s 105A into the Criminal Procedure Act. The German legislature in 2009 decided to regulate what until then had been informal practice by inserting several rules into the German criminal procedure, amongst which s 257c contains the main provisions. The implementation of bargains into the German law has produced tensions particularly due to the inquisitorial basis of the criminal procedure that stands in civil law tradition. This thesis evaluates how South African and German provisions on plea bargaining differ, i.e., on which different backgrounds they are based on, how the bargain procedures are construed and to what extent statutory plea bargaining in both legal systems displaces informal traditional agreements. The comparison is enriching under the aspect that both countries implemented the bargain procedure but had to place them on fundamentally different grounds. Having presented the grounds that motivated the research (Chapter I.), the origins of plea bargaining in general as well as the legal development toward the present statutory provisions in both countries are examined (Chapter II.). The bargain procedures are compared in detail (Chapter IV.). A large part focuses on particular problem areas and how both legal systems cope with them (Chapter V.). The result of the research is summarized in a conclusion (Chapter VI.).
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Pleitonderhandeling kan beskryf word as die proses van onderhandel en die aangaan van ooreenkomste in die strafproses. Die vervolging en die verdediging sal gewoonlik ooreenkom dat die beskuldigde skuldig sal pleit in ruil vir een of meer toegewings deur die vervolging. Ooreenkomste kan insluit die nie-vervolging of vermindering van klagte, spesifieke aspekte van vonnis, voorwaardes van parool en talle meer. In ‘n hele aantal lande word die oorgrote meerderheid van sake afgehandel by wyse van pleitooreenkomste. Dit is egter duidelik dat pleitooreenkomste in konflik is met die konsep van ‘n gewone verhoor en is gevolglik ook in konflik met van die grondbeginsels van die strafprosesreg. Dit raak ook die grondwetlike regte van beskuldigdes en die belange van die samelewing. Ten spyte van hierdie kritiek en meer, is die praktyk van pleitonderhandeling wydverspreid. Daar blyk besliste voordeel te wees vir die deelnemende partye, byvoorbeeld die vermyding van lang verhore met onsekere beslissings. Suid-Afrika (met ‘n sterk gemeenregtelike tradisie) het die praktyk van pleitonderhandeling formeel en per statuut in 2001 aanvaar, met die aanvaarding en invoeging van artikel 105A in die Strafproseswet, 1977. Die wetgewer in Duitsland het in 2009 besluit om die informele praktyk van pleitonderhandeling te formaliseer met die invoeging van sekere bepalings in die Duitse strafproseskode. Hierdie invoeging het sekere spanning veroorsaak in die Duitse strafproses, veral weens die inkwisitoriese tradisie in daardie jurisdiksie. Hierdie tesis evalueer die Suid-Afrikaanse en Duitse benaderings tot pleitonderhandelinge, hoe dit verskil, die verskillende regskulturele kontekste waarbinne dit plaasvind, en die mate waartoe pleitonderhandeling in beide sisteme informele ooreenkomste vervang het. Die vergelykende ondersoek bevind dat beide stelsels die pleitooreenkoms ingestel het, maar dit moes doen mvn fundamenteel verskillende gronde. Hoofstuk I (die motivering vir die studie), word gevolg deur ‘n historiese ondersoek (Hoofstuk II). Die verdere hoofstukke fokus op die regsvergelykende aspekte en die gevolgtrekkings word in Hoofstuk VI uiteengesit.

This dissertation is comparative study of plea bargaining in South Africa and England. It covers when plea bargaining was embraced in the South African criminal justice system. Plea bargaining defines the act of negotiating and concluding contracts in the context of criminal proceedings. Usually the prosecutor and the accused agree that, the accused will plead guilty to the charge brought against him in return for a concession from the prosecution. The agreement is not restricted to the subject matter submitted. Agreements can include charges that are not prosecuted or reduced, particular terms of penalty, probation requirements, and much more. The vast majority of criminal instances are resolved through negotiation in many nations. Plea bargaining infringes the notion of a standard trial and thus conflicts with well-known basic principles of criminal proceedings. In addition, negotiation before criminal trials heavily involves both the accused and the public interest's constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2019.
Procedural Law
LLM
Restricted

Orientadora : Profa. Dra. Clara Maria Roman Borges
Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal do Paraná, Setor de Ciências Jurídicas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito. Defesa: Curitiba, 05/04/2017
Inclui referências : f. 125-139
Resumo: Para acessar o debate moral em torno das práticas de plea bargaining é necessário compreender a concepção peculiar de pena e sua especial necessidade de justificação como prática política. Dentro das justificações morais para a pena, a vertente retributivista mostra-se dominante em círculos de filosofia da pena contemporâneos. Embora não sem controvérsia, é possível apontar para um quadro do retributivismo, com seus princípios orientadores. A partir desses princípios orientadores são analisadas as práticas de plea bargaining, as quais apresentam inúmeros pontos de atrito com as justificativas da pena, mesmo nas vertentes não retributivistas. Na sequência, são apresentadas e discutidas as justificativas mais importantes para a plea bargaining, passando pelas justificativas penalógicas e por aqueles marcadamente pautadas na lógica de mercados. Por fim, o argumento de que os negócios penais são obtidos sem a voluntariedade dos acusados é testado, com a discussão em torno da coação inerente a esses acordos. Palavras-chave: Pena; Retributivismo; Plea bargaining; Justiça Negocial; Acordos Penais; Voluntariedade.
Abstract: As a way to access the moral debate about plea bargaining it is necessary to grasp the peculiar concept of punishment and its special need for a justification as a political practice. Within the moral justifications for punishment, retributivist theories appear dominant in the contemporary community of philosophy of punishment. Although not absent of controversy, it is possible to build a framework of retributivism by pointing at its guiding principles. Plea bargaining is analyzed from these guiding principles. Various points of friction with the justifications of punishment are identified, even from a non-retributivism point of view. Next, the most important justifications for plea bargaining are presented and discussed, from the penalogical justifications to those marked by market rationality. At last, the argument that plea bargains are achieved without the voluntariness of the defendants is tested, with references to discussion on the inherent coercion of such deals. Keywords: Punishment; Retributivism; Plea bargaining; Negotiated Justice; Plea bargains; Voluntariness.

The thesis is about a contextual and prospective analysis of the Ethiopian variant of plea bargaining focusing on the major components of legal culture, legal structure and principles of criminal law and procedure. To this end, it makes use of a thorough analysis of policy and reform documents, laws, as well as comparative literature, interviews and questionnaires. The thesis argues that the Ethiopian variant of plea bargaining is less desirable and feasible. It hardly fits into the Ethiopian legal system for it is constrained by inherent due process concerns in an exacerbated fashion as well as structural/institutional and cultural limitations. Here three subarguments emerge: First, plea bargaining which inherently relates less to evidence and circumvents fundamental principles of criminal law and procedure, aimed at ensuring the integrity of the process, is likely to yield , inter alia, inaccurate outcomes- the innocence problem. With a less developed legal structure (weak defence in particular) and weak legal culture/rule of law, the problem would be exceptionally formidable in Ethiopia. Second, huge structural and functional limitations of legal institutions- the police, the prosecution, the judiciary, and the defence/legal aid, mean plea bargaining would not fare well. Third, plea bargaining tends to be incompatible with the prevailing legal culture. In America and Western Europe, it is often characterized by problems of fairness and outcome inaccuracy. On the face of weak legal culture/rule of law, it remains to be more so in Ethiopia. While plea bargaining may solve problems of delay and enhance efficiency in many jurisdictions, it is not a universal prescription, though. With jurisdictions like Ethiopia whose legal institutions and legal culture are less developed; whose trial appears to be simple, inexpensive, less utilized and correlates very loosely as an underlying cause of delay, plea bargaining is less likely to offer the desired efficiency gains even at all costs. Conversely, it would be more of a liability than an asset at least in three senses: it is likely to yield inaccurate outcomes- wrongful convictions in an aggravated fashion; put defendant`s rights at greater risk, and leave a room for abuses and corruptions.

As the most powerful position of the courtroom workgroup, the prosecutor plays an essential role in the criminal justice system. From the defendant's initial contact with the criminal court process when the prosecutor makes the charging decision, until sentencing when the prosecutor's recommendation guides judicial discretion, prosecutors hold the power to decide a defendant's fate. Despite the parameters that govern their ability to use discretion, the prosecutor still maintains a significant amount of power to influence crucial decisions with regard to the defendant. The current study addresses the issue of prosecutorial discretion and the ability to mishandle the powers bestowed upon such a powerful position. While prosecutorial discretion has a broad base, the study was narrowed to specifically concentrate on discretion as it impacts plea bargaining and final dispositions. Additionally, an analysis of the data looks at whether or not a defendant faces jury trial penalty for exercising his/her constitutional right to a trial by jury. A statistical comparison was constructed using data collected with respect to specific murder and sexual battery statutes over a 24-month period. Based on the statistical data provided within the study, those individuals who accepted the plea deal offered by the state faced a far less severe punishment than those who opted to go to trial.
B.A. and B.S.
Bachelors
Health and Public Affairs
Criminal Justice

This thesis investigates the ethical issues and controversies that surround the use of plea bargaining in international criminal tribunals. Existing approaches to this subject have a tendency to be overly abstract, resulting in often ideologically deterministic justifications or critiques of plea bargaining in an international context. These approaches also fail to take into account any human dimension that may be involved in these negotiations. This thesis goes some way towards remedying this by making use of extensive in-depth interviews with international trial professionals. The thesis incorporates these interviews into an analysis of plea bargaining through three theoretical models: classic utilitarianism, classical liberal rule of law and legal imperialism. Each of these three models highlights significant issues in relation to the use of plea bargaining in an international context. Whilst they offer both justifications and critiques, revealing a number of gaps and blind spots, elements of each offers something that can assist an understanding of the use of plea bargaining in such a controversial arena as international war crime tribunals. The thesis argues that, when considered together, a holistic approach begins to develop which offers a more nuanced approach to plea bargaining than is currently available. This analysis is assisted and illustrated by interviews with named participants in war crime tribunals. These assist in developing a more unique perspective on plea bargaining by contextualising its theoretical findings by placing them into the tangible and realistic contexts of legal practitioners. The thesis opens with an introduction which sets out its aims and objectives. After which there is a separate chapter that discusses the methodologies used in this thesis. This is then followed by two chapters that outline the role of the international tribunals and introduce the concept and to explain the trajectory of plea bargaining and its use in the global arena. The thesis then moves on to its more substantial chapters which evaluate the this particular legal phenomenon; the third explores the justifications for plea bargaining through the theory of utilitarianism, examining its relevance in light of the interview responses, whilst the fourth is concerned with the objections to plea bargaining that are contained within the concept of the classical rule of law. Here, once more, the interviews undertaken with legal practitioners are used to challenge the theoretical assumptions put forward by such liberal thinking. Building even further on these responses, the fifth chapter argues for a consideration of plea bargaining as a form of legal imperialism. The thesis concludes with a critical reflection that draws on its analysis of the three models to offer some recommendations concerning the future use of plea bargaining within the context of international war crime tribunals.

The contemporary Australian criminal prosecution process functions as a guilty plea system. The guilty plea is critical to the efficient running of criminal courts and the criminal justice system. Statutory provisions and case law almost guarantee that defendants prosecuted for serious criminal offences receive sentence reductions in exchange for guilty pleas. Whilst guilty pleas are arguably the most important mitigating factor that contemporary judges consider in their sentencing deliberations, this was not always the case. Historically, most defendants pleaded ‘not guilty’ and jury trials were the dominant mode of case disposition. Yet defendants began pleading guilty in increasingly greater proportions in some US and English courts from around the mid-nineteenth century. The ‘rise of the guilty plea’ triggered system transformation from jury trial to a guilty plea system of prosecution. This thesis is the first research to examine the rise of the guilty plea in the Australian context. It departs from previous scholarship by arguing a theoretical framework that positions the ‘guilty plea’ rather than ‘plea bargaining’ as the focus of study. The historical plea bargaining scholarship hypothesises that the guilty plea phenomenon was the outcome of emerging plea bargaining practices between prosecuting and defence counsel. However the precursors to bargaining, including public prosecution and centralised policing, were extant in the Australian criminal justice system long before guilty pleas began accelerating. This thesis argues that a plea bargaining framework is unsuited to explaining system transformation in Australian courts. This thesis employs a mixed methods research methodology to investigate guilty pleas at both a macro and micro-level of analysis. The quantitative study employs large scale data from the Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘The Prosecution Project’. It tracks the acceleration of defendants’ guilty pleas in more than 10,000 cases prosecuted in the Queensland, Western Australian and Victorian Supreme Courts between 1901 and 1961. It identifies the mid-twentieth century as the period when system transformation occurred in Australian courts, significantly later than hypothesised in the current scholarship. The significant mechanism driving this acceleration was the rapid increase in guilty pleas to property theft prosecutions, specifically burglary and stealing. The qualitative component of the study provides micro-level, in-depth analysis of the practices of police, lawyers, and the judiciary that influenced defendants’ guilty pleas. The analysis focuses on 60 property theft cases prosecuted in the Queensland Supreme Court, but also synthesises a range of archival sources including reported decisions, administrative records, and newspapers. This analysis identifies the key role of police practices in the pre-trial stage of the prosecution process. These practices focused on convictions obtained through confessional material, rather than investigation, but increasingly included problematic practices such as inducing confessions and guilty pleas. However, crown prosecutors and the judiciary failed to acknowledge the extent of these practices until the transformation to a guilty plea system was complete. Police practices were thus the central cog in a series of linked gears of practice involving lawyers and the judiciary that influenced defendants’ decisions to plead guilty and established the origins of the contemporary guilty plea system.
Thesis (PhD Doctorate)
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
School of Crim & Crim Justice
Arts, Education and Law
Full Text

Since its appearance in Europe, the trial by jury had to travel a long path until it became the official procedure to try criminal cases in the United States. Although it was not really created with that specific purpose, over the years it experienced memorable moments in which it was granted with the prestige and value required to be inserted in the Constitution of that country, as a safeguard against the arbitrariness of the governmental power. Today, however, the great importance that it had in the past has significantly decreased. The needs and practices of a system with a particularly high rate of convictions have relegated and transformed it into a real endangered specie. The following article describes and explains its birth and rise, as well as its subsequent virtual disappearance due to the not so efficient as dangerous guilty pleas.
Desde su aparición en Europa, el juicio por jurados tuvo que recorrer un largo camino para convertirse en el método oficial de juzgamiento de casos penales en los Estados Unidos. A pesar de que no fue creado exactamente con esa finalidad, tuvo varios momentos memorables durante su desarrollo que le otorgaron el prestigio y valor necesarios para insertarse en la Constitución de ese país como una garantía frente al abuso del poder. Hoy, sin embargo, la gran importancia que alguna vez tuvo ha quedado atrás. Las necesidades y prácticas propias de un sistema con una altísima tasa de condenas han terminado por relegarlo, convirtiéndolo en una verdadera especie en peligro de extinción. El siguiente artículo describe y explica el nacimiento y auge de los juicios por jurados para causas penales y su posterior virtual desaparición a manos de los no tan eficientes como peligrosos acuerdos negociados de condena.

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
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

Cette thèse consiste à expliquer les lacunes que connait le droit français en matière d'auto-incrimination. Cette notion est inexistante en france et ne permet pas d'assurer aux justiciables un respect des droits de la défense affirmé. En effet, l'absence de ce droit au sein du code de procédure pénale ou de tout autre texte français, pose difficultés car les droits de la défense ne sont pas pleinement garantis. Certains mécanismes sont donc validés alors qu'ils sont attentatoires. Il est impératif que cette notion, avec tous les aspects qu'elle englobe soit prise en compte en droit français. Si le système américain et canadien le privilégie tant c'est bien que ce droit de ne pas s'auto-incriminer requiert un développement approfondi. Il sera également important d'observer comment le doit pénal français tente de le contourner, notamment au regard de certaines alternatives au jugement tel que le plea-bargaining. La question sera donc de se demander s'il est préférable de privilégier une atteinte aux droits de la défense ou la peine qui peut en découler
This thesis consists of explaining the shortcomings of French law in self-incrimination. This notion is non-existent in France and does not ensure that litigants respect the rights of the defense asserted. Indeed, the absence of this right in the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other French text poses difficulties because the rights of the defense are not fully guaranteed. Some mechanisms are validated while they are detrimental. It is imperative that this notion, with all the aspects it encompasses, be taken into account in French law. If the American and Canadian system privileges it so much it is good that this right not to incriminate itself requires a deep development. It will also be important to observe how the French criminal law attempts to circumvent it, especially with regard to some alternatives to judgment such as plea-bargaining. The question will therefore be whether it is preferable to favor an infringement of the rights of the defense or the sentence that may result from it

The plots of Billy Budd and The Bonfire of the Vanities are organized entirely around a lawsuit. In The Pickwick Papers the trial is only a part, though an important one, of a series of related adventures in which the main characters of the novel participate. In the three novels there is a trial in which the accused is found guilty, although he is actually innocent. In The Posthumous Papers of the Club Pickwick, the author’s main purpose is to present the operation of the legal system, in which the modus operandi of unscrupulous lawyers, who rely only on cheating and deceiving methods, is atthe beginning of and determines the outcome of the lawsuit. In Billy Budd, an innocent is sentenced to death in order to preserve a supposed higher interest: the common good. In The Bonfire of the Vanities, political factors, personal interests, resentments and other worldly elements determine the outcome of the trial. In the three cases, the watchmaking mechanism that a lawsuit appears to be is completely overcome by factors outside it.
Las tramas de Billy Budd y La hoguera de las vanidades están organizadas íntegramente alrededor de un juicio. En Los papeles póstumos del Club Pickwick, el proceso es una parte importante de la obra, pero también existen aventuras relacionadas en las que participan los diversos personajes. En los tres juicios se juzga a un inocente. En Los papeles póstumos del Club Pickwick, el autor busca presentar el funcionamiento real del sistema legal, en el cual el modus operandi de abogados inescrupulosos, quienes emplean únicamente métodos tramposos y fraudulentos, determina el origen y el resultado del proceso. En Billy Budd, un inocente es condenado a muerte para preservar un supuesto interés mayor: el bien común. En La hoguera de las vanidades, factores políticos, intereses personales, resentimientos y otros elementos de carácter mundano determinan el resultado del proceso. En los tres casos, el mecanismo de relojería que parece ser el proceso es totalmente sobrepasado por factores externos al mismo.

L’émergence de la justice restaurative est le résultat d’une certaine inefficacité de la justice pénale classique. Le concept de la justice restaurative propose de répondre d’une façon novatrice à la criminalité et aux conflits. La justice restaurative se révèle être aujourd’hui une voie prometteuse de consolidation de l’harmonie sociale. Elle cherche à soutenir toutes les personnes impliquées (les victimes, les délinquants et les membres de la communauté), à leur donner des possibilités de participer et de communiquer et ainsi à favoriser une démarche de réparation afin de rétablir les liens sociaux brisés suite à l’infraction. Ces travaux de thèse ont pour objectif de connaître et comprendre la justice restaurative, les modalités et les mesures rencontrées notamment en France et en Thaïlande. À cet effet, nous avons posé deux questions centrales, à savoir : Quel est le cadre général et juridique de la justice restaurative ? ainsi que : Quelles sont les mesures existantes déclinées pour la mise en œuvre de la justice restaurative ? Grâce aux réponses apportées à ces questions, nous pourrons mieux connaître et comprendre la justice restaurative en France et en Thaïlande
The emergence of restorative justice is the result of inefficiency of the classic criminal justice process. The concept of restorative justice offers innovative approach to crime and conflict. It appears to be a promising way to consolidate social harmony by supporting all the people involved (victims, offenders and community members). Restorative justice gives them opportunities to participate and communicate; and encourages a process of repair in order to mend the broken society bonds caused by offense. The aim of this thesis is to know about and understand terms and measures encountered during restorative justice programme in Thailand and in France. To do this, we need to answer two questions: what are the general and legal frameworks of restorative justice? and what are the existing measures implemented on the restorative justice? The answers of these questions should give us a better understanding of the restorative justice of both countries

Parler de négociation en matière pénale peut, de prime abord, semblerantinomique. Issue par tradition du modèle accusatoire de justice pénale, la logiqued’intégration du consensus dans le champ de la répression s’observe pourtant dans lesystème procédural à l’égard de procédures dont le fonctionnement est entièrementconditionné par l’aveu. Instrument au service de la répression des pratiquesanticoncurrentielles, du traitement du contentieux de masse ou de la lutte contre lacriminalité organisée, la négociation se présente aujourd’hui comme un processus dont lelégislateur ne peut plus faire l’économie. De ce constat est née la volonté d’appréhender lephénomène au moyen d’une définition qui permet d’une part, de mieux cerner l’articulationdes diverses modalités de la négociation avec les modes de réponse pénale traditionnels,d’autre part d’en apprécier les conséquences notamment au regard des principes directeursde la matière. Plaçant l’autorité de poursuite au rang d’acteur principal du système judiciaire,le processus de négociation nécessite l’élaboration d’un cadre juridique strict afin d’assurerla garantie des droits fondamentaux du justiciable. Si l’échange qui s’établit entre l’autoritéde poursuite et la personne mise en cause révèle l’existence d’un accord, l’étude dufonctionnement concret des procédures de négociation ne permet pas de conclure à laréalité d’un contrat. Illustration de la logique probatoire à l’oeuvre dans le système répressifnord-américain, le développement de la négociation doit s’inscrire dans le respect d’unéquilibre entre les impératifs d’efficacité et le respect des principes qui confèrent à la justicepénale française son identité
One can have reservations about the idea of negotiation in criminal law. Yet, theinitiative of reaching consensus in the field of repression – an initiative that derives from thetraditional adversarial model of criminal justice – can nevertheless be observed in theprocedural system with regard to procedures the implementation of which is entirelydetermined by the confession. The negotiation has been used to curb anti-competitivepractices, to handle class action lawsuits or to fight organized crime, and has definitelybecome a key process for lawmakers to consider. This observation has led to an examinationof this phenomenon through a definition which shall help to understand, on the one hand, thearticulation of the many forms of negotiation with the standard criminal procedure, and on theother, to appraise its consequences, especially those that are in conformity with the mainguiding principles of criminal justice. By placing the prosecution at the center of the justicesystem, plea-bargaining requires a strict legal framework to protect the basic rights of peoplesubject to trial. If discussions between the prosecution and the defendant have brought tolight some sort of agreement, the study of the inner workings of the bargaining procedureshas not exposed the existence of a contract. This dissertation aims to demonstrate that thecurrent development of plea-bargaining, a process which is illustrative of the probationaryrationale of the repressive North American criminal justice system, calls for some balancebetween the imperatives of efficiency and the respect of the distinctive characteristics of theFrench justice system

Parler de négociation en matière pénale peut, de prime abord, semblerantinomique. Issue par tradition du modèle accusatoire de justice pénale, la logiqued’intégration du consensus dans le champ de la répression s’observe pourtant dans lesystème procédural à l’égard de procédures dont le fonctionnement est entièrementconditionné par l’aveu. Instrument au service de la répression des pratiquesanticoncurrentielles, du traitement du contentieux de masse ou de la lutte contre lacriminalité organisée, la négociation se présente aujourd’hui comme un processus dont lelégislateur ne peut plus faire l’économie. De ce constat est née la volonté d’appréhender lephénomène au moyen d’une définition qui permet d’une part, de mieux cerner l’articulationdes diverses modalités de la négociation avec les modes de réponse pénale traditionnels,d’autre part d’en apprécier les conséquences notamment au regard des principes directeursde la matière. Plaçant l’autorité de poursuite au rang d’acteur principal du système judiciaire,le processus de négociation nécessite l’élaboration d’un cadre juridique strict afin d’assurerla garantie des droits fondamentaux du justiciable. Si l’échange qui s’établit entre l’autoritéde poursuite et la personne mise en cause révèle l’existence d’un accord, l’étude dufonctionnement concret des procédures de négociation ne permet pas de conclure à laréalité d’un contrat. Illustration de la logique probatoire à l’oeuvre dans le système répressifnord-américain, le développement de la négociation doit s’inscrire dans le respect d’unéquilibre entre les impératifs d’efficacité et le respect des principes qui confèrent à la justicepénale française son identité
One can have reservations about the idea of negotiation in criminal law. Yet, theinitiative of reaching consensus in the field of repression – an initiative that derives from thetraditional adversarial model of criminal justice – can nevertheless be observed in theprocedural system with regard to procedures the implementation of which is entirelydetermined by the confession. The negotiation has been used to curb anti-competitivepractices, to handle class action lawsuits or to fight organized crime, and has definitelybecome a key process for lawmakers to consider. This observation has led to an examinationof this phenomenon through a definition which shall help to understand, on the one hand, thearticulation of the many forms of negotiation with the standard criminal procedure, and on theother, to appraise its consequences, especially those that are in conformity with the mainguiding principles of criminal justice. By placing the prosecution at the center of the justicesystem, plea-bargaining requires a strict legal framework to protect the basic rights of peoplesubject to trial. If discussions between the prosecution and the defendant have brought tolight some sort of agreement, the study of the inner workings of the bargaining procedureshas not exposed the existence of a contract. This dissertation aims to demonstrate that thecurrent development of plea-bargaining, a process which is illustrative of the probationaryrationale of the repressive North American criminal justice system, calls for some balancebetween the imperatives of efficiency and the respect of the distinctive characteristics of theFrench justice system

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
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

Le thème de la protection pénale de l'accusé, connu des pénalistes, mérite aujourd'hui d'être renouvelé sous un angle essentiellement probatoire, au regard de l'évolution actuelle du procès pénal. Situés au confluent de l'innocence et de la culpabilité, les droits et garanties accordés à l'accusé, entendu dans son acception conventionnelle, doivent être analysés en considération des principes fondateurs que sont la présomption d'innocence et les droits de la défense. L'évolution continue de ces deux principes, dans un sens diamétralement opposé, rejaillit inévitablement sur l'intensité et les modalités de la protection dont bénéficie toute personne suspectée ou poursuivie dans le cadre d'une procédure pénale.La présente étude, volontairement limitée à la phase préparatoire du procès pénal, se propose d'appréhender, dans un souci pratique et technique, les différentes évolutions jurisprudentielles et législatives opérées en la matière. Y seront ainsi abordées les principales problématiques actuellement rencontrées en procédure pénale telles que la question du statut juridique du suspect ou encore l'effectivité du principe du contradictoire dans l'avant-procès pénal. S'il peut être tentant, au premier abord, de conclure à un renforcement indiscutable de la protection pénale accordée à l'accusé, il conviendra alors de reconsidérer cette question à l'aune de l'étude des limites procédurales attachées au procès pénal. Loin d'aborder ce thème dans une optique partisane, il sera question de modération dans les propos tenus. En effet, peut-être plus que sur toute autre question de procédure pénale, il est impératif de savoir raison garder
The theme of the criminal protection of the accused, well-known to criminal specialists, today deserves to be renewed under a probationary essentially angle, in the light of current developments in the criminal trial. Located at the confluence of innocence and guilt, the rights and guarantees granted to the accused understood in its conventional sense, must be analyzed in consideration of the founding principles of presumption of innocence and the rights of the defense. The continuing evolution of these two principles, in a sense diametrically opposite, inevitably reflects the intensity and the terms of the protection afforded any person suspected or prosecuted under criminal proceedings.This study deliberately limited to the pre-trial phase, proposes to understand, in a practical and technical problems, the various case law and legislative developments carried out in the field. Will thus addressed the key issues currently faced in criminal proceedings such as the question of the legal status of the suspect or the effectiveness of the adversarial principle in the preliminary criminal trial. While it may be tempting, at first, to conclude an indisputable strengthening the criminal protection afforded to the accused, then it will be necessary to reconsider this issue in terms of the study of procedural limitations attached to the criminal trial. Far from addressing this issue in a partisan way, it will be about moderation in the remarks. Indeed, perhaps more than any other issue of criminal procedure, it is imperative to keep a sense of proportion

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
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

碩士
中原大學
財經法律研究所
89
Abstract At 1997, R.O.C introduces the “Plea Bargaining” institution to solve the over-heavy problem of the judicature. This article which are discussed in the following five parts contains the description of “Plea Bargaining”, analysis of our country’s rules, and seeks for other better method. In the first chapter, I describe the motives, goals, methods, and range of my research. In the second chapter, I focus on the meaning of “Plea Bargaining”, and illustrate the procedures of its practice, history, theory, regulative fundament, types, and the difference between the “Plea of Guilty” and “Plea Bargaining”. In the third chapter, I propose the legal problems about the “Plea Bargaining”, such as the factor affecting it, the criminal and penal definition of a defendant, and the legal efficacy to the defendant, the public procurator, and the judge in the “Plea Bargaining”. In the fourth chapter, I discuss the “Summary Procedure” and our present institutions, which not only introduces and compare the similar institutions of our country but also describe the disputation of adding this new institution, the problems of present institutions, and the possibly solvable ways. In the fifth chapter, I admit the reform of new institution (Plea Bargaining), and wish we can improve the judicial system to achieve a more prompt and perfect situation. In the appendix I, there is the brief introduction of the similar institution in Germany, Japan, England, France, etc. In the appendix II, there is a practical case for your reference.

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...

碩士
東吳大學
法律學系
94
In 2002, the revision of the code of criminal procedure reformed the system of the criminal procedure from “pro-nonadversary system” to “pro-adversary system”. In 2004, plea bargaining was passed and in effect in Taiwan. There are several types of plea bargaining in America, which means charge bargaining, count bargaining, and sentence bargaining. However, our plea bargaining only consists of sentence bargaining. Because of the existence of §264III and §267 in the code of criminal procedure, our system of the criminal procedure doesn’t be transformed to “pro-adversary system” thoroughly. In this situation, are there any conflicts when the rules of plea bargaining were applied? Furthermore, the code of criminal procedure §154I regulates that prior to a final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent. Does plea bargaining violate the above-mentioned principle? On the other hand, according as “cases with clear evidences be closed forthright, cases with doubts be judged deliberately”, the code of criminal procedure has be settled numerous systems, such as simplified trial procedure, simplification of procedure, defer-prosecution and plea bargaining. What is the standard about how to chose and use among them? The conclusion in this article is following: 1. Our legislator should select and adopt “pro-adversary system” thoroughly about the system of the criminal procedure. 2. The right to counsel of the accused should be given more concern. 3. The key point about how to chose and use among simplified trial procedure, simplification of procedure, defer-prosecution and plea bargaining, the conclusion suggests that, the right of the accused, the victim’s participation in the criminal procedure, the effect of labeling and the effect of “Restorative Justice” are in need to be thought.

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。
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。
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。
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。
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.
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.
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.
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.
Detailed summary in vernacular field only.
Detailed summary in vernacular field only.
Detailed summary in vernacular field only.
Detailed summary in vernacular field only.
Jiang, Jue.
"December 2012."
Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013.
Includes bibliographical references.
Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web.
Abstract and appendixes also in Chinese.
Chapter Chapter I: --- The Criminal Reconciliation System (xingshi hejie) In China --- p.1
Chapter 1.1 --- The idea of ‘criminal reconciliation’ (xingshi hejie) --- p.4
Chapter 1.2 --- The implementation of criminal reconciliation --- p.15
Chapter 1.2.1 --- The procedure and scope of application of criminal reconciliation --- p.16
Chapter 1.2.2 --- Criminal reconciliation and the normal criminal procedure --- p.24
Chapter 1.2.3 --- The involvement of lawyers in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.27
Chapter 1.2.4 --- Different criminal reconciliation practices nationwide --- p.29
Chapter 1.3 --- Further reported practices in criminal reconciliation --- p.40
Chapter 1.3.1 --- Practice of criminal reconciliation outside its stipulated scope --- p.42
Chapter 1.3.2 --- Cooperation among authorities: ‘duijie’ and ‘liandong’ mechanisms --- p.43
Chapter 1.3.3 --- Wider involvement of participants in criminal reconciliation --- p.46
Chapter 1.4 --- Summary --- p.48
Chapter Chapter II: --- The Scholarly Debate Around Criminal Reconciliation --- p.51
Chapter 2.1 --- Scholarly debates of criminal reconciliation practices --- p.52
Chapter 2.1.1 --- Positive appraisals --- p.52
Chapter 2.1.2 --- Criticisms --- p.60
Chapter 2.1.3 --- The debate concerning uses of criminal reconciliation outside its stipulated scope --- p.66
Chapter 2.1.4 --- The debate concerning lawyers’ role in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.68
Chapter 2.2 --- Scholarly debates of justifications for criminal reconciliation --- p.70
Chapter 2.2.1 --- Differences between criminal reconciliation and restorative justice --- p.72
Chapter 2.2.2 --- A critique of the theory of ‘private cooperation’ (sili hezuo) --- p.77
Chapter 2.2.3 --- A critique of the theory of ‘third realm’ (di san lingyu) --- p.79
Chapter 2.2.4 --- A critique of the theory of ‘civil mediation’ --- p.88
Chapter 2.3 --- Summary --- p.89
Chapter Chapter III: --- Criminal Reconciliation In Practice: Evidence From Official Case Files --- p.91
Chapter 3.1 --- The motivation for the empirical study --- p.91
Chapter 3.1.1 --- The deficiencies of doctrinal research --- p.91
Chapter 3.1.2 --- Existing empirical studies: findings and remaining concerns --- p.94
Chapter 3.2 --- An overview of criminal reconciliation practices in the three fieldwork locations --- p.100
Chapter 3.2.1 --- Selection of cases --- p.101
Chapter 3.2.2 --- The basic statistical facts --- p.103
Chapter 3.2.3 --- The cases eligible for criminal reconciliation --- p.105
Chapter 3.2.4 --- The suspects/defendants eligible for criminal reconciliation --- p.106
Chapter 3.2.5 --- The procedure of criminal reconciliation and follow-up programmes --- p.-106
Chapter 3.2.6 --- Duration of criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.127
Chapter 3.3 --- An analysis of the practice of criminal reconciliation relying on the evidence from official case files --- p.138
Chapter 3.3.1 --- The procedure of criminal reconciliation in practice --- p.138
Chapter 3.3.2 --- Achievements and failures of the official goals in practice --- p.141
Chapter 3.3.3 --- Questioning the official design of the criminal reconciliation procedure --- p.143
Chapter 3.3.4 --- Conflicting official goals --- p.145
Chapter Chapter IV: --- The Process Of Criminal Reconciliation Programmes: Evidence From Interviews --- p.147
Chapter 4.1 --- The initiation stage --- p.148
Chapter 4.1.1 --- Violations of eligibility requirements --- p.148
Chapter 4.1.2 --- No presumption of innocence --- p.155
Chapter 4.1.3 --- Violations of the principle of voluntariness --- p.156
Chapter 4.2 --- The criminal reconciliation meeting --- p.162
Chapter 4.2.1 --- Appropriate communication between the parties in some reconciliation meetings --- p.163
Chapter 4.2.2 --- Focus on bargaining over compensation --- p.166
Chapter 4.2.3 --- Private agreement reached prior to the formal reconciliation meeting --- p.-171
Chapter 4.2.4 --- Pressures on the parties to reach agreements --- p.172
Chapter 4.2.5 --- Compensation as the main content of criminal reconciliation agreements --- p.173
Chapter 4.2.6 --- Clauses added by officials into criminal reconciliation agreements --- p.174
Chapter 4.3 --- Factors affecting official decisions in criminal reconciliation processes --- p.175
Chapter 4.3.1 --- Focus on fulfillment of compensation obligations --- p.175
Chapter 4.3.2 --- The lack of judicial independence --- p.179
Chapter 4.4 --- Insights into follow-up programmes --- p.182
Chapter 4.4.1 --- Limited substantiation of findings in case file examination --- p.182
Chapter 4.4.2 --- The effects and problems of the follow-up programmes --- p.185
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
Chapter 4.5 --- Summary --- p.187
Chapter Chapter V: --- The Participants Of Criminal Reconciliation Programmes: Evidence From Interviews --- p.191
Chapter 5.1 --- Official involvement in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.191
Chapter 5.1.1 --- Officials’ leading and dominant role --- p.192
Chapter 5.1.2 --- Officials’ positive comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.200
Chapter 5.1.3 --- Officials’ negative comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.203
Chapter 5.1.4 --- Officials’ expressed concerns about criminal reconciliation --- p.205
Chapter 5.1.5 --- Difficulties faced by officials in charge of criminal reconciliation --- p.208
Chapter 5.2 --- The parties participating in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.213
Chapter 5.2.1 --- The victim’s participation under coercion --- p.213
Chapter 5.2.2 --- No presumption of innocence --- p.218
Chapter 5.2.3 --- Active roles for parties only in private reconciliation --- p.222
Chapter 5.2.4 --- The parties’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.225
Chapter 5.2.5 --- The parties’ difficulties in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.229
Chapter 5.3 --- The lawyers as actors (participants) in criminal reconciliation cases --- p.232
Chapter 5.3.1 --- Lawyers’ role as mediators between officials and the parties --- p.232
Chapter 5.3.2 --- Some lawyers’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.235
Chapter 5.4 --- The role of other participants in criminal reconciliation programmes --- p.237
Chapter 5.4.1 --- Serving officials’ purposes --- p.238
Chapter 5.4.2 --- Other participants’ comments on criminal reconciliation --- p.239
Chapter 5.5 --- Summary --- p.241
Chapter Chapter VI: --- Understanding Wider Problems in the Criminal Justice System through the Lens of Criminal Reconciliation --- p.245
Chapter 6.1 --- Contradictory rules and ‘hidden rules’ (qian guize) --- p.246
Chapter 6.1.1 --- The prevalence of ‘hidden rules’ and ‘parallel systems’ --- p.247
Chapter 6.1.2 --- Internal and external pressures as the reason for ‘hidden rules’ and ‘parallel systems’ --- p.248
Chapter 6.1.3 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.261
Chapter 6.2 --- Criminal justice through ‘correction’ (jiaozheng) and ‘thought reform’ (sixiang gaizao) --- p.263
Chapter 6.2.1 --- The concept of ‘correction’ in the wider criminal process --- p.264
Chapter 6.2.2 --- The ideology of ‘thought reform’ underlying ‘correction’ --- p.271
Chapter 6.2.3 --- A critique of thought reform --- p.274
Chapter 6.2.4 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.277
Chapter 6.3 --- The State’s failure to enforce victims’ claims to compensation through civil litigation --- p.278
Chapter 6.3.1 --- The reason leading to the problem with enforceability --- p.280
Chapter 6.3.2 --- Preliminary conclusions --- p.282
Chapter Chapter VII: --- Conclusion --- p.283
Chapter Appendix I --- Sentencing Normalization Form of the Criminal Division of B District People’s Court [in Xi’an] --- p.288
Chapter Appendix II --- Article 277-279 of The Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2012 Revision) --- p.291
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
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
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
Chapter Appendix VI --- Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Combining Severity with Leniency --- p.335
Bibliography --- p.368

碩士
國立成功大學
法律學研究所
96
To alleviate the heavy burden of caseload, the legislature finally gave the greenlight to the revision of the criminal procedure law under the expectation of the officials of the court on March 23, the 93rd year of the Republic of China, adding the procedure of the plea bargaining of chapter 7-1. Having been announced by the President on April 7 of the same year, the new law took effect officially on April 9 of the same year. Yet, the scholars are still undecided about whether it is appropriate for introducing the system of the plea bargaining from the United States; thus, they are of the opinion that the officials of the court introduce this system rashly only for the main reason of economizing on the process. Therefore, their discussion focuses not on safeguarding the defendant’s rights but on the valid foundation of the plea bargaining. According to the new law, once the defendant enters a plea of guilty during the trial procedure and reaches the plea agreement with the prosecutor, then he will waive a variety of trial rights that he has in the common criminal procedure. What should we do to ensure that instead of being under the outward pressure, the defendant still states his opinions freely in the guilty plea process as in the common criminal procedure? As a result, this paper regards the defendant’s voluntariness in the plea bargaining, dealing with the performance of the defendant’s voluntariness as well as with the factors influencing the defendant’s plea, how the factors will effect and to what extent they will affect? Besides, how does the court inquire into the voluntariness of the guilty plea? What is the criterion of identification in the guilty plea process? Is the current law sufficient for safeguarding the defendant’s voluntariness in the plea bargaining? Is there any excessive or insufficient point? In the end, we also offer some suggestions to revise the law in the future.

This thesis deals with plea bargaining, a method of settling criminal cases without litigation. Plea bargaining is any agreement by the accused to plead guilty in return for the promise of some benefit. While the practice is openly discussed in Canada, little literature exists about this topic in Austria. An analysis of the practice is thus made by comparing the Austrian law enforcement system to the Canadian one. After a comparison of the rules and principles that govern the procedures in both countries, the thesis deals with the problems that are caused by plea bargains. Proponents have said that plea bargaining is a practice that eases the administration of justice without either prejudicing the rights of the innocent or occasioning real injustice to the guilty. The second part of this work thus focuses on the rights of the accused and the rules that are designed to protect him. The defendant who pleads guilty receives mild treatment as a reward for his admission of guilt. Whether or not this is consistent with the public's claim for justice is dealt with in part three of the essay. The method used is an exploration of the goals and purposes of criminal punishment in Austria and Canada. It is shown that plea bargaining not only causes a lack of protection for the accused, it also creates inequality. The practice leads to a goal displacement. In the pursuit of efficiency the original goals of the penal system and the idea of justice are neglected.

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.

碩士
國立臺北大學
犯罪學研究所
95
The system of plea bargaining was formally implemented in 2004, wished to reach the ideal of economic of litigation, and lightened the burden that a judge heard cases. This system has already been exceeded for two years so far. Whether the system could really reach legislators’ anticipated result or not. The purpose of this study was to assessment of the implementing effect of the plea bargaining system. On documents, this research introduced the legislative reasons for the plea bargaining system, the domestic scholar's comments on the system, and proved with the theories of economic of litigation, restorative justice ,and negotiate. The design of this research was based on both qualitative interviewing and multivariate data analysis. The interviewers were selected five people who once adopted the plea bargaining system, three criminals of larceny and two of fraudulence. In the part of multivariate data analysis: the subjects were sampling 168 cases in the first instance, and found out 168 cases of comparison, then compared the two samples with the punishment degree of judgment and the duration of procedure, in order to inspect the influence of variables plea bargaining system on the punishment degree of judgment and duration of procedure. The results of this study were listed as follows: whether adopted the plea bargaining system or not, It had no influence to consult the time to hear a case to the first instance judge . For the time appealing to a higher court, there was only influence to some extent to cases of stealing. About the punishment degree of judgment: Whether adopted the plea bargaining system or not , there was a little effect on prison term, but the one who adopted the plea bargaining system was easily got the chance of Convert Imprisonment into Fine. In addition, this research found out what factor influenced establishment of the plea bargaining system by distinction analysis. And also wanted to predict what case would be needed to adopt the plea bargaining procedure in the future. Finally, the researcher offered some suggestions for future study reference: including suitable condition for relaxing the plea bargaining procedure, the condition in plea bargaining should be diversified, and can study other different kinds of cases again etc.

Originally Anglo-Saxon criminal process concept in the form of plea bargaining also constituting the topic of this thesis has become a phenomena within a number of civil law countries in the last decades. This alternative way of solving criminal cases consists simply of the possibility for an agreement between the prosecutor and accused through plea bargaining if the accused, under certain conditions, admits committing the offense and agrees with the proposed punishment. When looking at foreign but also domestic legal literature we may, without any exaggeration, consider plea bargainig as a controversial institute. On one side are the proponents with their strongest argument being the acceleration and simplification of the criminal proceedings. However, on the other side, their opponents refer mainly to the flagrant inconsistency of this institute with the fundamental principles of continental criminal proceedings. In the first part this thesis the author examines the agreements in criminal proceedings in general, focusing on their origin, historical development and various basic forms in which the agreements in criminal proceedings are presented in the world. Special section is devoted to plea bargaining regulation in the Czech Republic where this institute was introduced by an Amendment to the...

This master's thesis deals with the institute of agreement process that originates in anglo-american plea bargain, which has been implemented in many criminal proceedings within the countries of continental Europe. Civil law based countries are using agreements in different forms during their criminal proceedings as an alternative to common trials. Its purpose is to make them faster and more simple. Every agreement is different from each other, but one common element is that accused person pleads guilty of crimes he/she is being prosecuted for and also that the authorities involved in given criminal proceeding are willing to make concession in punishment of the prosecuted. Even though this type of solution to overburdened authorities active in criminal proceedings seems to be quite positive, there are some critics that find this method in conflict with some basic principals of continental criminal proceeding. This thesis introduces the agreement process in general view, briefly examines its origins and focuses mainly on its legislation in the Czech Republic and Germany. Legislative force in the Czech Republic implemented the agreement on guilt and punishment into criminal proceedings by an amendment of Criminal Procedure Code No. 193/2012 Sb. as a completely new diversion, respectively as special...

This thesis is dedicated to legal institute of plea bargaining which has been adopted to Czech criminal procedure law on September 1, 2012. The plea bargaining law in the Czech Republic is highly influenced by plea bargaining practise used in different forms in various common law jurisdictions. The thesis is divided into three basic chapters. First chapter of this thesis describes overall background and reasons for adoption of plea bargaining into Czech law. In this chapter the author presents and analyses reasons and desired results the Czech legislature pursues by adoption of plea bargaining and its usage in practise. Second chapter provides a critical view of relation of plea bargaining with the rest of Czech criminal procedure regulation, especially an interaction of plea bargaining with fundamental principles of criminal procedure. Third chapter focuses on whole procedure related to plea bargaining as regulated by current law. This chapter describes and analyses positions of all parties to the process concerned, plea bargaining negotiation process itself and its legal limits. Furthermore it depicts and examines the process of court hearing and position and role of the court within it. The third chapter also concerns several legal measures laid down in order to secure compliance of the plea...

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa guarantees every person a fair trial; the right to a fair trial right trial must begin and conclude within a reasonable time and without undue delay. Internationally the same guarantees and protections are available to unconvicted suspects. However, the South African criminal justice system lacks behind internationally and falls short of promoting these guarantees. Investigation was done on delays in commencing and finalising trials in light of constitutional provisions, the consequence and the impact of the delay with discussion on prison conditions and overcrowding with reference to the Constitutiton, legislation and case law. Delayed trial, prison overcrowding and poor prison conditions are still an issue in South Africa and there needs to be positive change to enforce and practice prescribed directives. South Africa‟s justice system through its servants, need to do more to gain a higher status of having a constitutionally democratic country that fully promotes‟ rights of detainees.
Criminal & Procedural Law
LLM

La présente étude cherche à décrire et à comprendre les pratiques professionnelles des avocats de la défense lors des négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité, phénomène très courant bien qu’encore trop peu connu. Nous nous sommes intéressées auxpropos de douze avocats de la défense travaillant au Palais de Justice de Montréal. Nos analyses mettent en évidence différents éléments liés à la cause, à l’accusé ou aux considérations professionnelles des avocats qui peuvent avoir une influence sur le déroulement des négociations, mais surtout, elles montrent comment ces éléments peuvent être interprétés différemment selon les avocats et les cas qu’ils défendent. De plus, le discours des avocats sur le déroulement des négociations laisse entrevoir des pratiques différentes entre eux, selon leurs niveaux d’implication (dans le dossier, dans leurs relations…).
This research paper aims to describe and understand the professional practices of criminal lawyers during plea bargaining, a well established phenomenon which is more pervasive than is commonly understood. Our study focuses on interviews of twelve criminal lawyers working at the Montréal courthouse. Our analysis emphasizes different elements related to the case, the defendant or lawyers’ professional considerations that can influence the negotiation process. We also show how those elements can be seen in a different way depending on the lawyer and the specific case they defend. Moreover, our lawyers’ interviews show that there is no uniformity in the way they handle cases, depending on their level of involvement (in the case, in their relationships…).

O presente estudo assenta no consenso na fase de Julgamento, em particular, no que concerne aos Acordos sobre a Sentença em Processo Penal. O mecanismo em causa reveste uma incontornável relevância prática, na medida em que se traduz numa maior eficácia, eficiência e celeridade processuais, o que só pode contribuir para a prossecução do favorecimento do processo. Em Portugal, partiu do Professor Figueiredo Dias (inspirado na prática jurisprudencial alemã e na subsequente alteração legislativa naquele ordenamento jurídico) o apelo à realização dos ditos acordos. Tendo os nossos Tribunais aderido e lançado mão dos Acordos sobre a Sentença em Processo Penal. A ideia de consenso prende-se com o facto do arguido confessar os factos que lhe vêm imputados na Acusação e, em contrapartida, o Tribunal estabelecer o limite máximo, abstratamente considerado, da pena na qual o mesmo poderá vir a incorrer. Sendo, necessariamente encurtado o momento previsto para a produção de prova. Daí se erguerem vozes no sentido que esta eficiência funcionalmente orientada pode colocar em causa a manutenção do Estado de Direito nos moldes que o conhecemos. Foi, exatamente, por não ser pacífico na doutrina nem na jurisprudência, que tendo o Supremo Tribunal de Justiça sido chamado a pronunciar-se, manifestou a sua oposição face aos Acordos sobre a Sentença, pelo menos, enquanto não se operar a alteração legislativa que lhes dê suporte literal. Perante esta posição assumida pelo aresto do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça e assumida também pela Procuradoria-Geral da República, cessou o recurso dos sujeitos processuais ao mecanismo dos Acordos sobre a Sentença. Sucede que, cada vez mais, parece fazer sentido revisitar o tema, analisar as suas vantagens e desvantagens e ponderar a sua aplicação prática, designadamente, alicerçada numa eventual alteração legislativa.
The present study is based on the consensus in the Judgment, in particular, regarding the Plea Bargaining in Criminal Procedure. The mechanism in question has an inescapable practical relevance in that it results in greater efficiency, efficiency and speed of procedure, which can only contribute to furthering the process. In Portugal, Professor Figueiredo Dias (based on German jurisprudence and subsequent legislative change) drew attention to the call for such agreements. Thus, our Courts have begun to use the Agreements on the Sentence in Criminal Procedure. The idea of consensus is that the accused confesses the facts that are imputed to him in the indictment and, on the other hand, the Court establishes the maximum limit, abstractly considered, of the sentence in which it may be incurred. The production of evidence is necessarily shortened. Hence, there are voices in the sense that this functionally oriented efficiency can put in question the maintenance of the rule of law in the ways that we know it. It was precisely because it was not settled in doctrine or in case-law that, since the Supreme Court of Justice had been called upon to rule, it had expressed its opposition to the Agreements on the Judgment, at least until the legislative amendment. Faced with this position assumed by the Supreme Court of Justice and also assumed by the Attorney General's Office, the appeal of the procedural subjects to the mechanism of the Settlement Agreements ceased. More and more it seems to make sense to revisit the subject, to analyze its advantages and disadvantages and to consider their practical application, in particular, based on a possible legislative change.

Dissertação de Mestrado em Direito apresentada à Faculdade de Direito
The present work, framed in the area of Consensual Criminal Procedure, of the Criminal Sciences genre, aims to carry out a critical study of the trends of expansion of consensual spaces in criminal justice, especially in Brazil, as it is observed the introduction in the legal system of institutes such as bargaining, which provide opportunities for the anticipation of the State's punitive power through the confession of the accused, who, by consenting to his guilt, receives a benefit, usually a reduction of his own sentence, in exchange for the suppression of some procedural stage and, consequently, of a fundamental right of its own. The expansion of these spaces takes place not only within the scope of Brazilian Law, but also throughout the world, with judicial systems that strive for more agile penal solutions, even if for this the defendant's guarantees are given up. After the conceptualization and understanding of how the consensus applied to criminal law would be, especially in North American, Portuguese and Brazilian law and the possibility of its expansion, already observing the lege ferenda trends, the analysis of criminal procedural systems will be carried out, inquisitorial, accusatory and mixed and the reception of the consensus in each of them. Finally, it was intended to critically investigate the consensus under the aspect of fundamental rights, revealing which would be its premises violated in a criminal proceeding of the Democratic State of Law, especially the presumption of innocence and the search for the truth as a procedural purpose, as a way to question the expansion of spaces for consensus in the Criminal Procedure.
O presente trabalho, enquadrado na área do Processo Penal Consensual, do gênero Ciências Criminais, tem como escopo realizar um estudo crítico das tendências de ampliação dos espaços consensuais na justiça criminal, sobretudo brasileira, na medida em que se observa a introdução no ordenamento jurídico de institutos como a barganha, a qual oportuniza a antecipação do poder punitivo estatal através da confissão do acusado, o qual ao consentir com sua culpa, recebe um benefício, normalmente uma redução de sua própria pena, em troca da supressão de alguma fase processual e, consequentemente, de um direito fundamental seu. A expansão desses espaços se dá não somente no âmbito do Direito brasileiro, mas como em todo o mundo, com sistemas judiciários que pugnam por soluções penais mais ágeis, nem que seja às custas das garantias do arguido. Posteriormente à conceituação e entendimento sobre como seria o consenso aplicado ao direito penal, sobretudo no direito norte-americano, português e brasileiro e a possibilidade de sua expansão, já observando as tendências lege ferenda, passa-se à análise dos sistemas processuais penais, inquisitório, acusatório e misto e a recepcionalidade do consenso em cada um deles. Por fim, pretendeu-se investigar o consenso de forma crítica sob o aspecto dos direitos fundamentais, revelando quais seriam suas premissas violadas num processo penal de Estado Democrático de Direito, sobretudo a presunção de inocência e a busca pela verdade como finalidade processual, como forma de questionar a ampliação dos espaços de consenso no Processo Penal.