Moreover, the negotiation of oral arguments is not as simple as it might seem. In the effective negotiation of a criminal plea agreement, counsel must have the technical knowledge of each “element” of a crime or charge, an understanding of the actual or potential evidence that exists or could be developed, technical knowledge of “less locked up offences” in relation to separate charges or offences, and an adequate understanding of criminal guidelines. The criminal practice of the federal state is governed by Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Part II (criminal procedure). Chapter 221 of the second part deals with the arraignments, oral arguments and court proceedings. The US Attorney`s Manual (USAM) contains several provisions dealing with oral arguments. For example, Section 9-16.300 (Plea Agreements) states that oral arguments must “honestly reflect the whole and seriousness of the defendant`s conduct” and that any departure must be consistent with the provisions of the criminal directive. The official policy of the Department of Justice is to define only facts that accurately reflect the accused`s conduct. Plea agreements must be approved by the Assistant Attorney General if charges are dismissed, if no criminal prosecution is promised to the defendant companies, or if special sanctions are recommended (USAM 7-5.611). In accordance with Article 217 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor is required to consult the victim and inform him before the end of the plea.
In addition, under the instructions of the Georgian Crown, the prosecutor is required to consider the interests of the victim and, as a general rule, to enter into the plea contract after compensation for the damage. Several of the countries studied have introduced provisions or procedures in this area to improve efficiency and reduce court overload. This appears to have been the main reason for the introduction of provisions in Malaysia in 2010 and Nigeria in 2004 (financial crimes) and 2015 (all federal crimes) and the establishment of a criminal procedure settlement programme in Singapore in 2011. Improved efficiency was also cited as the reason for the proposed “special route” provisions in Indonesia. In Georgia, the introduction of “procedural agreements” in 2004 as part of attempts to combat police corruption and the influence of organized crime groups. Arguments usually take place over the phone or in the prosecutor`s office in the courtroom. Judges are only involved in very rare cases. The arguments, accepted by the judge, will then be placed “on the disc” in open court. The defendant must be present. Advocacy critics are usually either scholars or victims of crime. Scholars complain about the coercion of the prosecutor and victims of crime complain about the lighter sentences that lead to arguments. Advocates of pleading are usually the actors of the system.
They are judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and criminal defence lawyers. The majority of these people accept oral arguments as a necessary tool in the management of criminal justice. They point out that the critics of the oral arguments have no solution to the lack of judicial resources. Without more resources for more courts, judges, prosecutors and court employees is a pleading necessity in most jurisdictions. The term “Alford Plea” now applies to any case in which the accused makes an admission of guilt but denies having actually committed the act. Alford`s argument is expressly prohibited in some states and limited in others. In federal courts, the defence of certain defences is conservative and is admissible only in certain circumstances. There is no perfect or simple definition of oral arguments. Black`s Law Dictionary defines it as: In Japan, pleas were previously prohibited by law, although sources reported that prosecutors were illegally offering oral arguments in exchange for their confessions.     Since prosecutors largely respond to their conviction rates, they are obliged to win at all costs.