The Global Practice of Plea Bargaining and the Nigerian Legal System

Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Beberapa Negara

Wajah Hukum ◽

10.33087/wjh.v3i1.46 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Nella Octaviany Siregar

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

The Netherlands ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Legal System ◽

Basic Concept ◽

Common Law ◽

Plea Bargaining ◽

Comparative Approach ◽

Conceptual Approach ◽

The Common

Plea Bargaining System is widely interpreted as a statement of guilt of a suspect or defendant. Plea Bargaining practised in many countries that have embraced the Common Law legal system. Plea Bargaining that was developed in the common law "legal system" has inspired the emergence of "mediation" in the practice of the judiciary based on the criminal law in the Netherlands and France, known as "transactie". Plea Bargaining is categorized as a settling outside the hearing and their users is also based on specific reasons. Even in the renewal of law criminal justice events in Indonesia, has also picked up the basic concept of plea bargaining that was adopted in the RUU KUHAP with the concept of "Jalur Khusus". That with the presence of the concept of "Jalur Khusus", is also a concern when viewed can enactment back recognition of guilt of the defendant as the basis of the judge's verdict is dropping. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze the plea bargaining in some countries. The type of research used is the juridical normative research, using a conceptual approach, comparative approach, historical approach.

Download Full-text

Bargaining in the Dark

New Criminal Law Review An International and Interdisciplinary Journal ◽

10.1525/nclr.2019.22.4.434 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 434-493 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Andrea Kupfer Schneider ◽

Cynthia Alkon

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Legal System ◽

Plea Bargaining ◽

The United States ◽

The State ◽

Criminal Cases ◽

Defense Counsel ◽

Negotiation Theory ◽

Crucial Component ◽

Criminal Legal System

Plea bargaining is the primary, and unavoidable, method for resolving the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States. As more attention is paid to reform and changes in the criminal legal system, plea bargaining has also come into the spotlight. Yet we actually know very little about what happens during that process—a potentially complex negotiation with multiple parties that can, at different times, include prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, defendants, and victims. Using negotiation theory as a framework, we analyze why more information about the process itself can improve this crucial component of the system. More information—more data—would permit informed judicial oversight of pleas, improve lawyers’ capacities to negotiate on behalf of clients and the state, and increase the legitimacy of the bargaining between parties where one side tends to have far more resources and power. Without increased transparency, many of the players in the criminal legal system are just bargaining in the dark.

Download Full-text

Mixed Court and Jury Court: Could the Continental Alternative Fill the American Need?

American Bar Foundation Research Journal ◽

10.1111/j.1747-4469.1981.tb00426.x ◽

1981 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 195-219 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

John H. Langbein

Keyword(s):

Present Article ◽

Legal System ◽

Plea Bargaining ◽

European Countries ◽

Court System ◽

Large Measure ◽

Trial Procedure ◽

Serious Crime ◽

Anglo American ◽

Full Trial

For cases of serious crime a number of European countries employ a variant of the jury called the mixed court, in which laymen and professional judges sit together in a single panel that deliberates and decides on all issues of verdict and sentence. Trials in the mixed court proceed quite rapidly, in large measure because the mixed court dispenses with most of the time-consuming practices of jury control that characterize Anglo-American trial procedure. Consequently, the legal system can process all cases of serious crime to full trial. The present article describes the German mixed-court system and contrasts it with the American jury, asking to what extent the mixed court serves the purposes of the jury. The conclusion is that the mixed court serves the jury policies well, though not fully; and that it is a superior alternative to the indigenous nontrial devices—plea bargaining and bench trial—that have displaced the jury from routine American practice.

Download Full-text