Another situation in which an innocent accused may plead guilty is in the case of an accused who cannot apply for bail and is being held in a prison or detention centre. Because it can take months or even years for criminal cases to go to court or even to prosecute in some jurisdictions, an innocent defendant who is offered a plea bargain that involves a sentence of less time than he or she would otherwise in prison to await an indictment or trial may choose to: accept the plea agreement and plead guilty. [16] There is, of course, a difference between crushing limbs when one refuses to confess, or a few more years in prison if one refuses to confess, but the difference is in degree, not in nature. Plea bargaining is like torture coercion. Like medieval Europeans, Americans now apply a procedural system that condemns without trial. [12] Previous research has argued that the problem of innocence is minimal because defendants are risk-averse and willing to defend themselves in court. However, our research shows that when study participants are placed in real, non-hypothetical negotiation situations and given accurate information about their statistical probability of success, just as they might be informed by their lawyer or the government during a criminal trial, innocent defendants are very reluctant to risk. Plea bargaining[31] in magistrate trials is only permitted to the extent that prosecutors and the defense can agree that the accused pleads guilty to certain charges and the prosecutor drops the rest. [Citation needed] Although it is not a plea bargain, in Crown Court cases, the defense may require the judge to indicate the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed if the defendant decided to plead guilty.
[32] [33] If a court accepts a plea, the guilty plea is considered a conviction and the defendant cannot be retried for the same crime. However, if the defendant violates an agreement, the prosecution may resurrect the defendant. For example, suppose Defendant A must testify against Defendant B as part of the agreement. If Defendant A pleads guilty under this agreement, but subsequently refuses to testify against Defendant B, the prosecutor may request the annulment of the plea and guilty plea agreement. Courts treat plea bargains as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. A defendant who breaks a plea bargain amounts to a breach of contract that causes the attorney to no longer be bound by his or her obligation in the plea agreement. If a prosecutor fails to comply with the pleas, defendants can ask the judge for an exemption. The judge could ask the defendant to withdraw the guilty pleas, force the prosecutor to follow the plea negotiation, or use another remedy. The fundamental principle of plea bargaining is that it must be based on the free will of the defendant, the equality of the parties and the advanced protection of the rights of the accused: trial hearings are when the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Some charges involve a wide range of possible penalties. In low-level cases, a criminal agreement could ensure that the penalty is a fine without imprisonment. In more serious cases, the criminal enterprise may exempt years of imprisonment or commute prison sentences to probation. In some common law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the Australian state of Victoria, plea bargaining is practiced only to the extent that the prosecution and the defence can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to certain or reduced charges, in exchange for the prosecutor withdrawing the remaining or more serious charges. In New South Wales, a 10-25% reduction in sentence is usually granted in exchange for an early admission of guilt, but this concession should be granted by the judge to recognise the utilitarian value of an early admission of guilt to the court system – it is never negotiated with a prosecutor. [38] The courts of these jurisdictions have made it clear that they will always decide on the appropriate sentence. There are no negotiations on criminal sanctions between the prosecution and the defence. In Estonia, plea bargaining was introduced in the 1990s: the sentence is reduced in exchange for confessions and most legal proceedings are avoided. Plea bargaining is allowed for crimes punishable by up to four years in prison. Normally, a 25% reduction in the penalty is granted. [Citation needed] The practice of overload is unacceptable and the courts can dismiss unnecessary charges. However, the courts are reluctant to prevent the prosecution from submitting a case to an indictment supported by a probable reason.
Prosecutors have the discretion to hear oral arguments and can withdraw offers after they have been submitted. A defendant is also free to refuse a plea bargain. In many cases where a plea bargain is withdrawn or dismissed and the case is taken to court, if the defendant is found guilty, they will receive a harsher sentence than that offered by the prosecutor`s office in the plea bargain. This has been referred to as a ”trial penalty” and is another source of criticism of plea bargaining. Defendants are not required to enter into plea negotiations or accept an offer of a plea agreement. Some defendants choose to refuse a plea bargain if they believe that the risk of conviction is outweighed by the possibility of acquittal. Other defendants may ignore the risks and make a policy decision to go to court. Some of these defendants are trying to use the trial as a forum to express their dissent, and others simply want to exercise their constitutional right to trial or publicly declare their version of events. .