Plea Bargaining: Antiquated Procedural Criminal Law Ensuring Justice Dispensation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55184/dmejl.v1i01.53Keywords:
Plea Bargain, Jury Trial, Jurisprudence, JusticeAbstract
The two-party criminal plea bargain negotiation generally takes place between a prosecutor and a public defender for a man prosecuted with aggravated assault. Multiple crimes concede to waive his or her constitutional privilege of having a jury trial in most of the nations. Thereby, a criminal defendant is provided with an opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser degree of charge by the prosecutor, in exchange for not bringing the higher charge. Therefore, in most of the developed countries practicing plea bargain, a person who is charged, perhaps with murder, might be able to slide his culpability down to manslaughter. Instead, in exchange for that, the prosecutor chooses not to hold a full trial. This promotes quick resolution of the criminal matters and faster relief to the victim. Plea Bargain is a relatively recent concept. It was absolutely unknown at the time the constitution was found and thereby makes no mention of plea bargaining whatsoever. The presumption both historically and in the letters of our, Constitution is that all criminal trials would be by juries. This paper highlights the aspects of Plea Bargaining in detail, while also representing its emergence as a concept in the global history and also in India. Further, the authors have carved out the practical notions of plea bargaining from the American Jurisprudence and the current acceptance of system. The concerned research has aimed on building a more practical approach towards the process of Plea Bargaining and its relevance to contemporary times
References
[i] J.K. Mathur, “Plea Bargaining- In Indian Context” 34(3) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 429-442 (1992).
[ii] James S. Taylor, “Plea Bargaining, Constraining Options, and Respect for Autonomy” 18(3) Public Affairs Quarterly 249-264 (2004).
[iii] 434 U.S. 357 (1978).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Law Commission of India, 154th Report on The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) (1996).
[vi] Justice Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Parliament of India, Report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003).
[vii] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), s. 265A.
[viii] Id. at s. 265B (1).
[ix] Id. at s. 265B (4).
[x] Id. at s. 265B (4)(b).
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Id. at ss. 265E, 265H.
[xiii] Id. at s. 265G.
[xiv] Id. at s. 265K.
[xv] Id. at s. 265L.
[xvi] 395 U.S. 238 (1969).
[xvii] Supra Note 1.
[xviii] Bordenkirch v. Hayes 434 U.S. 357 (1978).
[xix] Supra Note 1.
[xx] Law Commission of India, 142nd Report on Concessional Treatment of Offenders who on their own initiative choose to plead guilty without any bargaining (1991).
[xxi] 397 U.S. 742 (1970).
[xxii] 404 U.S. 257 (1971).
[xxiii] 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
[xxiv] Supra note 22.
[xxv] Supra note 18.
[xxvi] 566 U.S. 133 (Mar. 21, 2012).
[xxvii] AIR 1980 SC 854.
[xxviii] AIR 1980 SC 264.
[xxix] AIR 1976 SC 435.
[xxx] AIR 1978 SC 527.
[xxxi] AIR 2000 SC 164.
[xxxii] (2005) 1 GLR 709.
[xxxiii] Supra Note 7, s. 265G..
[xxxiv] Supra at 5.
