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. Consent without the Tribunal`s consent has no legal effect. The Tribunal must ensure that the fundamental agreement is reached on the basis of the defendant`s free will, that the defendant fully recognizes the nature of the fundamental agreement and its consequences. (Article 212 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure) Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown may agree to withdraw certain charges against the accused in exchange for a guilty plea. It has become a standard procedure for certain offences such as obstruction of driving. In the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed summarily or by charge before the accused makes his or her plea. If the Crown chooses to proceed summarily and the accused then pleads not guilty, the Crown cannot change its choice. As a result, the Crown is not in a position to offer summary proceedings in exchange for an admission of guilt. According to this description, a fundamental contract can sometimes be developed in the form of a formal contract, for example.
B the example above. More often, oral arguments are simply in the form of written letters from the prosecutor to the accused`s lawyer. The legal system offers few rules and protection to those who make a deal. In one of the Court`s first arguments, Brady v. United States (1970), the judges ruled that guilty pleas were acceptable as long as certain conditions were met, including: the accused must have competent legal assistance; they have not been forced to make threats, ill-represented or inappropriate promises; and they had to be able to make their «smart» arguments. But arguments don`t go away, so reformers have practical suggestions to improve them. Bibas wants a «consumer protection model.» Buyers, he told me, are more secure when they buy a credit card than defendants who plead guilty. He wants oral arguments to clearly explain certain things: exactly what the accused profess, what the obligations (class, probation) of the accused are, what the consequences of their non-compliance might be, and what the consequences of an admission of guilt might be on their lives.
He also proposed a «cooling-down period» before an accused entered a plea in serious cases. Mr. Stuntz proposed to give those who plead guilty the same protection as the military system provided to justice. Before accepting a plea, military judges conduct investigations to ensure that arguments do not proceed under duress and that the facts support them. According to Stuntz, this would shift some power from prosecutors to judges and make arguments more legitimate, which in turn would bring «great social gain.» The plea contract is between the parties – the prosecutor and the accused. Although the victim is not involved in the criminal case and the prosecutor is not a tool in the hands of the victim to take revenge on the offender, the victim`s attitude towards the pleading contract remains important. Even if the charges are more serious, prosecutors can still often bluff defence lawyers and their clients for a lesser offence. As a result, people who could have been acquitted for lack of evidence, but also who are in fact truly innocent, will often plead guilty.