Plea Bargaining in India: A New Panorama in Criminal Court Practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-111
Author(s):  
Shakuntla Sangam ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Court Practice

Criminal Justice in an Era of Mass Deportation

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
State Level ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Collateral Consequence

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.

Juvenile Justice and Plea Bargaining

2019 ◽  
pp. 107-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison D. Redlich ◽  
Tina Zottoli ◽  
Tarika Daftary-Kapur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Guilty Plea ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Adult Criminal Court ◽  
Almost All

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.

Violent Youth in Adult Court: Process and Punishment

1986 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cary Rudman ◽  
Eliot Hartstone ◽  
Jeffrey Fagan ◽  
Melinda Moore
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Time Averaging ◽  
Case Processing ◽  
Violent Youth ◽  
Alternatives To Incarceration

Despite the widespread transfer of violent youth from juvenile to criminal court, there is little empirical knowledge of the transfer process, rate of transfer, or of case outcomes, sentences, and placements of transferred juveniles. This study examines these issues for 177 violent youths considered for transfer in four urban areas, comparing court outcomes for youths transferred to criminal court with those for youths retained in juvenile court. Varying procedures, criteria, and court rules result in case processing time averaging 2.5 times greater for transferred youth. Most spend this time in detention. Violent youth considered for transfer are adjudicated at a high rate for the offenses as charged in both juvenile and criminal court. Plea bargaining for charges rarely occurred. Youth considered for transfer but retained by the juvenile court received maximum commitments and placements within the jurisdictional limits of the juvenile justice system. Transferred youth convicted in criminal court received even more severe sanctions both in nature and length. Alternatives to incarceration were rarely used by either the juvenile or criminal court.

Guilty Pleas and Plea Bargaining at the icc: Prosecutor v. Ongwen and Beyond

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 480-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheryn Omeri
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Guilty Plea ◽  
Lord's Resistance Army ◽  
Television Interview ◽  
Lord’S Resistance Army ◽  
Brigade Leader

In 2015, after over ten years in operation, the International Criminal Court (icc) came as close as it has arguably ever come to receiving a guilty plea from an accused. In a television interview, alleged former brigade leader in the Lord’s Resistance Army, Dominic Ongwen, apparently asked Ugandans to forgive him for ‘all the atrocities I committed’. This caused speculation about whether the Office of the Prosecutor (otp) would and should enter into plea negotiations with Ongwen with a view to obtaining a guilty plea. This article explores the legal, practical and ethical questions associated with the seeking and obtaining of guilty pleas in the context of proceedings before the icc. It aims to provide pragmatic suggestions for the obtaining of guilty pleas while observing the highest standards of fairness to accused persons.

scholarly journals The Extent of Voluntariness in Plea Bargaining for Economic and Financial Crimes in Nigeria

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Danjuma ◽  
Gan Ching Chuan
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Financial Crimes ◽  
The Law

The concept of plea bargaining has globally been recognised and applied in criminal trials so as to enable the accused person to have lighter punishment or to be charge with a lesser offence in a criminal court, while the prosecutor on the other hand will secure conviction. Plea bargaining accommodates the consensual agreement between an accused person and the prosecutor in respect of the case against the accused which is subject to court’s approval or acceptance. In Nigeria, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is empowered by law to compound offences and to dispose financial and other related offences against the accused persons. Hence, EFCC uses its discretion to apply plea bargaining to some of the cases it prosecutes with the aim of securing conviction and to recover the illegally acquired property from the accused. In the case of Dieprieye Alamiesiegha, after an agreement was reached between him and the prosecutor (EFCC), instead of him pleading guilty as required by law in Nigeria, he explained the reasons why he pleaded guilty. This article examines the cases of plea bargaining in Nigeria and analyses whether or not the admission of guilt by the accused is voluntarily made or is motivated and influenced by some extraneous factors. This article finds that based on the cases analysed, the acceptance of plea bargaining in Nigeria by the accused persons as applied by the EFCC were not made freely and voluntarily as required by the law and best practices in other jurisdictions. This is because the accused persons were forced into it by some certain extraneous factors that were initiated and proffered by the EFCC against provision of the law.

Business as Usual? Bail Decision Making and “Micro Politics” in an Australian Magistrates Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 325-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Travers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Business As Usual

Between the 1970s and 1990s, political scientists in the United States pursued a distinctive research program that employed ethnographic methods to study micro politics in criminal courts. This article considers the relevance of this concept for court researchers today through a case study about bail decision making in a lower criminal court in Australia. It describes business as usual in how decisions are made and the provision of pretrial services. It also looks at how traditionalists and reformers understood business as usual, and uses this as a critical concept to make visible micro politics in this court. The case study raises issues about organizational change in criminal courts since the 1990s, since there are fewer studies about plea bargaining and more about specialist or problem-solving courts. It is suggested that we need a new international agenda that can address change and continuity in criminal courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document