Plea Bargaining is defined as the agreement between the prosecutor and the defendant, whereby the defendant agrees to his or her guilt of crime that has been committed in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This means that the defendant pleads guilty for a less serious charge or to one of the serious charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges or the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a lighter sentence. This process allows both parties to save their time by avoiding lengthy trails and also allow the defendant to avoid the risk of conviction at trial on more serious charge. Plea bargaining is an agreement in a criminal case in which the prosecutor and the accused arrange to settle the case against the accused and it is also referred as plea-deal or copping a plea. The procedure of plea bargaining is very simple, it increases the efficiency of the courts and reduces the time and expense of the defendant.
The possible outcome of this scenario maybe that, if the mediator is so meticulous and calculated, no potential consequence could be caused In other case, if the party get caught by the police and finally found guilty and imprisoned, the respective party might reveal to the court about why the mediation process. Then, the worst outcome to the mediator would be that important evidence is upheld for further legal actions towards the mediator. 6. Conclusion The basic foundation of mediation is the confidentiality in the process and between parties; the principle of trust is the key of mediation, being a useful and successful method as an alternative dispute resolution. The establishment of the trust is vital.
When a crime is committed and an individual is caught in the act, there is a set process that one follows to adhere to the rules of the criminal justice system. This method can be simplified by looking at the common flow of events: (1) an individual is arrested, (2) individual is brought to court, (3) individual receives a punishment. Though it may appear that the way in which the criminal justice system functions is sufficient, many voice the concern that there are certain key players affected by crimes that are consistently disregarded. These players are otherwise known as the victims and the community. As a result, many have hypothesized a new approach to justice that incorporate all aspects of crime.
After the evidence is presented and weighed, and after the suspect, now defendant, is offered the opportunity to confront his accusers, he is either released or is found to have committed the alleged crimes. If found guilty, the suspect receives a sentence, or punishment, based on criteria set by the judge and by statutes. After the defendant is sentenced, he is turned over to the corrections system. Corrections
This means that the State actually has the right to put you up for capital punishment after you have been properly sent to trial. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not per se a violation of the 8th Amendment, although it shapes some procedural
1. Describe in detail the differences between civil law and criminal law. • A civil case involves a dispute between two people, or parties, on a certain issue. One party sues the other, and the jury determines liability and the amount of damages. The court may order the party found at fault to pay money to the injured party or to fulfill an obligation, such as honoring a contract.
According to Alkon (2014:12): Plea bargaining is based on informal negotiations. For plea bargaining to function, prosecutors need to have the discretion to decide when to offer plea bargains and what the offer should include. This can lead to different legal outcomes for otherwise similarly situated defendants. Some variation in sentencing is inevitable, even where all parties have followed the law and acted in good faith in negotiating pleas. However, plea bargaining can be used to cover disparate sentencing due to systemic problems like political interference in the legal system or corruption.
Role of Victim in Criminal Justice System in India recent trends More than fifty years ago Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo of the United States Supreme Court wrote "justice, though due to accused, is due to accuser also. The concept of fairness must not be strained till it is narrowed to a filament. We are to keep the balance true." The fundamental principle of a judicial system is fair trial and justice to both, the accused and the victim of crime. In order to apply this principle there involves a delicate judicial balancing of competing interests of the accused, the public and the victim.
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,
However, some commentators view adversarial systems as offering stronger protections for defendants due to their interpretation of the right to silence. In both systems the accused is protected from self-incrimination and guaranteed the right to a fair trial. Role of the victim Victims are not a party to proceedings. Prosecutors act on behalf of the State and do not represent the victim. In New Zealand, victims can provide a victim impact statement to the court at sentencing, which the Judge must take into account when determining the offender’s sentence.