Negotiate Plea Agreements

The extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been thoroughly investigated. Much research has focused on the rare real cases where innocence was later proven, such as successful calls for murder and rape based on DNA evidence that tend to be atypical of trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to investigate the real reactions of innocent people in general when confronted with real decisions of Plea Bargain. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate an actual controlled Plea Bargain situation rather than asking for theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a usual approach in previous research. [14] It put subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could have been laid, some of which were actually guilty (and knew) from the outset, and some were innocent, but apparently faced strong evidence of guilt and no verifiable evidence of innocence. Proof of guilt was presented to each subject and the choice was chosen between facing an academic ethics council and possibly a heavy sentence with regard to additional courses and other effects or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter “sentence”. The study showed that, according to court statistics, about 90 percent of the accused subjects, who were actually guilty, chose to make the plea and plead guilty. It was also found that about 56% of subjects who were in fact innocent (and who knew it in private) also pleaded and pleaded guilty, including for reasons of avoiding formal quasi-legal trials, insecurity, risk of greater damage to personal projects for the future or deprivation of the home environment due to renovation courses.

The authors stated:[14] The pleading agreement is concluded between the parties, the prosecutor and the accused. Often, it is precisely the scenario of the prisoner`s dilemma that applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to oppose the other suspect and testify, regardless of the innocence of the accused. The worst is probably if only one party is guilty: here, the innocent is not induced to confess, while the guilty is strongly induced to confess and testify against the innocent (including false testimony). [Citation required] The Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) and now its successor, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), consider sherman Act offenses to be a crime of moral turpitude. As a result, an alien convicted of a conspiracy offense is subject to deportation and exclusion from the United States, whether for personal or commercial travel. In March 1996, the Division concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the INS (now implemented by ICE to succeed INS) which establishes a protocol by which the Division of Cooperating Aliens will grant them a waiver of the inadmissible inadmissibility of the antitrust offence which they are prepared to admit before entering into an objection agreement. (93) Prior to the declaration of intent, the Department could not guarantee that a criminal conviction would not result in the expulsion of an alien and permanent exclusion from the United States. . . .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.