Guilty Plea Courts: A Social Disciplinary Model of Criminal Justice*

2019 ◽  
pp. 359-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Mcconville ◽  
Chester Mirsky
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 416-449
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains specific types of sentence and provide guidance on how a defence solicitor might prepare and deliver a plea in mitigation. It discusses when discretionary custodial sentence can be imposed; custody between the ages 18 and 21; length of custodial sentence; suspended sentence of imprisonment; concluding remarks on discretionary custodial sentences; fixed length sentences; sentencing dangerous offenders; community sentences; community sentences under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; guilty plea credit and community orders; enforcement of community orders under the CJA 2003 in the event of breach; deferring sentence; fines; compensation orders; conditional discharge; absolute discharge; bind over; ancillary orders; structuring a plea in mitigation; advocacy and the plea in mitigation; and professional conduct.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains specific types of sentence and provide guidance on how a defence solicitor might prepare and deliver a plea in mitigation. It discusses when discretionary custodial sentence can be imposed; custody between the ages 18 and 21; length of custodial sentence; suspended sentence of imprisonment; concluding remarks on discretionary custodial sentences; fixed length sentences; sentencing dangerous offenders; community sentences; community sentences under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; guilty plea credit and community orders; enforcement of community orders under the CJA 2003 in the event of breach; deferring sentence; fines; compensation orders; conditional discharge; absolute discharge; bind over; ancillary orders; structuring a plea in mitigation; advocacy and the plea in mitigation; and professional conduct.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Caroline Erentzen ◽  
Regina Schuller ◽  
Kimberley Clow

Much of our knowledge about wrongful convictions is derived from known exonerations, which typically involve serious violent offences and lengthy sentences. These represent only a small proportion of offences prosecuted in Canada each year, and little is known about how often innocent defendants may be wrongfully convicted of less serious offences. Recent discussions have begun to focus on the problem of false guilty pleas, in which defendants choose to  plead guilty to a lesser offence to avoid the time and cost required to defend their innocence. The majority of our knowledge of the factors contributing to wrongful convictions is based on American scholarship, with less empirical research exploring wrongful convictions within the Canadian context. The present research surveyed Canadian criminal defence lawyers about their experiences representing innocent clients, including their perspective on the underlying causes of wrongful convictions in Canada and their recommendations for reform to the criminal justice system. Nearly two-thirds of defence counsel in this study reported that they had represented at least one client who was convicted despite credible claims of innocence. Many reported that they regularly see innocent clients choose to enter a strategic false guilty plea, perceiving no meaningful or realistic alternative. Counsel described a system designed to elicit a guilty plea, with lengthy pre-trial delays, routine denial of bail, inadequate funding of Legal Aid, costly defence options, padded charges, and false evidence ploys. This research expands our knowledge of wrongful convictions in Canada, their hidden prevalence, and systemic problems that increase the likelihood of their occurrence.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains specific types of sentence and provide guidance on how a defence solicitor might prepare and deliver a plea in mitigation. It discusses when discretionary custodial sentence can be imposed; custody between the ages 18 and 21; length of custodial sentence; suspended sentence of imprisonment; concluding remarks on discretionary custodial sentences; fixed length sentences; sentencing dangerous offenders; community sentences; community sentences under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; guilty plea credit and community orders; enforcement of community orders under the CJA 2003; deferring sentence; fines; compensation orders; conditional discharge; absolute discharge; bind over; ancillary orders; structuring a plea in mitigation; advocacy and the plea in mitigation; and professional conduct.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains specific types of sentence and provide guidance on how a defence solicitor might prepare and deliver a plea in mitigation. It discusses when discretionary custodial sentence can be imposed; custody between the ages 18 and 21; length of custodial sentence; suspended sentence of imprisonment; concluding remarks on discretionary custodial sentences; fixed length sentences; sentencing dangerous offenders; community sentences; community sentences under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; guilty plea credit and community orders; enforcement of community orders under the CJA 2003; deferring sentence; fines; compensation orders; conditional discharge; absolute discharge; bind over; ancillary orders; structuring a plea in mitigation; advocacy and the plea in mitigation; and professional conduct.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter explains specific types of sentence and provide guidance on how a defence solicitor might prepare and deliver a plea in mitigation. It discusses when discretionary custodial sentence can be imposed; custody between the ages 18 and 21; length of custodial sentence; suspended sentence of imprisonment; concluding remarks on discretionary custodial sentences; fixed length sentences; sentencing dangerous offenders; community sentences; community sentences under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; guilty plea credit and community orders; enforcement of community orders under the CJA 2003 in the event of breach; deferring sentence; fines; compensation orders; conditional discharge; absolute discharge; bind over; ancillary orders; structuring a plea in mitigation; advocacy and the plea in mitigation; and professional conduct.


1995 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike McConville ◽  
Chester Mirsky
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
pp. 105756772098265
Author(s):  
Anette Bringedal Houge

Focusing on the guilty plea statements in sex crimes cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, this article investigates the ways that defendants re-present themselves, their agencies, and their offenses in response to the legal framework within which they talk. While their acts are at the core of international criminal justice (ICJ), defendants are more often spectators than participants when their guilt is negotiated and judged. They have for the most part also been absent in research on ICJ. As defendants’ voices are rarely heard during proceedings, their guilty plea statements produce rare access to war criminal’s staging of self and individual agency. At international criminal tribunals, defendants have wide audiences beyond the courtroom, and when they do speak, their stories potentially influence not only the court proceedings but also wider cultural and societal narratives about wartime agency and sexual violence. After identifying a guilty plea script, this article draws attention to a consistent and intriguing silencing of sexual crimes in the past and to how the defendants’ imageries of present and future selves align with the ICJ effect narratives about the individually disciplining and rehabilitative character of criminal justice and its general deterrent effects.


2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-58
Author(s):  
Ed Johnston

This article contends that piecemeal changes to the adversarial process since the dawn of the new millennium have transformed the CJS. The advent of (near) compulsory disclosure means the defendant has to reveal many elements of his defence. This dilutes the adversarial battle and leaves a process which is managerialist in nature. The Early Guilty Plea system is a mechanism to increase the efficiency by stemming the amount of cases reaching the trial stage. This has an impact on the defence lawyer’s role and renders him conflicted between advancing the best interest of the client against other pre-trial obligations. This small empirical study suggests that classic adversarial lawyers are seen as a relic of a bygone era. The modern criminal justice system prioritises speed and efficiency. If a case reaches court, the defendant is treated as an ‘informational resource’ of the court reminiscent of his position in the 17th century.


Criminology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca K. Helm

Plea bargaining is a process in the criminal justice system through which a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a specified criminal charge in exchange for a concession from the prosecution. This may include the prosecution ceasing to pursue any other criminal charges against the defendant, or recommending a more lenient sentence than they would have recommended otherwise. Although other jurisdictions allow sentence or charge reductions in exchange for guilty pleas (which can be referred to as plea bargaining), plea bargaining is typically associated with the United States system, and is used most extensively in the United States. This bibliography will focus on plea bargaining in the United States, bringing in global comparisons where relevant. In the United States, the constitutionality of plea bargaining was established in 1970 in the case of Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). Today, plea bargaining is permitted in all states as well as in the federal system, and although there are some differences in regulation of pleas in each jurisdiction, plea bargaining is typically viewed as an essential and permanent component of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors are able to grant enticing concessions to incentivize defendants to plead guilty. In this context, the vast majority of criminal convictions occur as the result of guilty pleas, rather than jury trials. Currently, guilty pleas account for around 97 percent of criminal convictions at the federal level. However, the practice of plea bargaining has been the subject of debate among academics and legal practitioners. On the one hand, plea bargaining facilitates an efficient criminal justice system. Through increasing the number of cases resolved via guilty plea rather than trial, plea bargaining conserves resources, protects victims from the traumas involved in trial, and provides benefits to defendants through sentence or charge reductions. Many commentators believe that the US criminal justice system would be unsustainable without the vast majority of cases being resolved via guilty plea. However, the largely unregulated nature of the plea-bargaining system and particularly the concessions that can be offered by prosecutors in exchange for guilty pleas has led to a critical view of the practice from many commentators, who associate the practice with overzealous prosecution, wrongful conviction, and rights violations. Research suggests that the concessions offered by prosecutors in exchange for guilty pleas are leading to innocent, as well as guilty, defendants pleading guilty. This is known as plea bargaining’s “innocence problem.” As of 2018, the Innocence Project noted that 18 percent of known exonerees in the United States had originally pleaded guilty to the crime that they were accused of. Research examining plea bargaining includes traditional and empirical legal research, and, increasingly, social-science research examining the decision-making of defendants in the plea bargaining context.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document