skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 78720 Find in a Library
Title: Plea Negotiations
Journal: Criminal Law Quarterly  Volume:22  Dated:(December 1979)  Pages:58-73
Author(s): D W Perras
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 16
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: Approaches to plea negotiations in England, the United States, and Canada are reviewed, and typical arguments for and against plea negotiations are presented, followed by a proposal for the use of plea negotiations in Canada.
Abstract: The English position on plea negotiations is that it can be undertaken between counsel, that the defense must be free to do its duty, that the accused must have complete freedom of choice, and that counsel must have access to the court without the court's indicating the specific sentence. The American system of plea negotiations is governed by its Constitution and by the U.S. Supreme Court's position that plea bargaining is an essential element in the disposition of criminal cases. The problem lies in controlling the practice. The American Bar Association is apparently attempting to standardize the practice and procedures relating to plea negotiations. The Canadian position on plea negotiations is ambiguous, in that some courts suggest that there can be no plea bargaining and others state that judges cannot participate in or initiate plea negotiations. On the other hand, some courts are prepared to listen to joint submissions and, in the case of statutes with penal provisions, give effect to bargains struck by the prosecution with the accused. The typical argument against plea negotiations is that it undermines the integrity of the justice system by failing to charge defendants with the precise offense of which they are suspected and failing to use the adversarial process. Those favoring plea negotiations argue for its cost-effectiveness and flexible individualization of the justice process. Canada should adopt a controlled process of plea negotiations. It is the responsibility of counsel for the accused and the prosecution to discuss all aspects of the case and perhaps determine if there is some common ground upon which the criminal charge can be assessed and ultimately handled in open court without the necessity of a trial. Footnotes and references are not provided. The author is the Director of Public Prosecutions for Regina, Saskatchewan.
Index Term(s): Canada; Great Britain/United Kingdom; Plea negotiations; United States of America
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=78720

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.