The plea bargain, a 'negociation' between the prosecutor and the defendant?

Author:Nadia Cantemir
Position:PhD Candidate, 'Nicolae Titulescu University' of Bucharest
Pages:156-165
SUMMARY

The new Code of Criminal Procedure brings a new institution among special procedures "the recognition agreement."Those who can conclude this agreement are the prosecutor and the defendant. Will it be a fair negotiation? It provides sufficient guarantees to avoid being violated the defendant’s rights? With this study we want to introduce the new elements of this special procedure, comparative... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
LESIJ NO. XX, VOL. 2/2013
THE PLEA BARGAIN, A “NEGOCIATION”
BETWEEN THE PROSECUTOR AND THE DEFENDANT?
Nadia CANTEMIR
Abstract
The new Code of Criminal Pr ocedure brings a new institution among special procedures “the
recognition agreement.”Those who can conclude this agreement ar e the prosecutor and the de fendant. Will
it be a fair negotiation? It provides sufficient guarantees to avoid being violated the defendant’s rights? With
this study we want to introduce the new elements of this special pr ocedure, comparative aspects with other
institutions or rules of criminal procedure from other countr ies. Last but not lea st, with the necessary
modesty, we will criticize and we will make a proposal for law rega rding the chosen theme.
Keywords: Plea bargain, new code of pena l procedure, prosecutor , defendant, reduction
of sentence boundaries with 1/3.
Introduction
This study aims to open a door to a newly established institution in the Romanian criminal
procedural law, namely the plea bargain, under the regulation of Chapter I of Title IV of the New
Criminal Procedure Code, chapter dealing with special procedures.
This study is of particular importance as we attorneys, interns, theorists need to be familiar
with innovative elements that are covered in the New Code. We find difficult this small scientific
approach but hope to take a step forward to the “new”.
The need for a new codification in the criminal procedure, presentation of the institution,
to break through the buncombe in order to reach the legislator’s judiciousness theologically
interpreting the legal text, the aspects that are comparable to other countries and why not criticism
and also feedback to this procedure are the goals that we want to achieve. Taking in to
consideration that the Law 135 of July the 1st 2010 on the Criminal Procedure Code, published in
the Official Gazette no. 486 of July the 15th 2010, is for the ones who accede to knowledge and
should have stir a strong eff ervescence, there is no relevant doctrine on this subject. Few but
important works, together with the comparative law, the explanatory memorandum of the law the
rules of criminal procedure that we will interpret are ways in which we will try to answer the set
objectives.
I. The context of the new regulations. Definitions.
In the explanatory memorandum
1, the current legal realities have revealed the lack of
prompt conduct of criminal trials in general, mistrusts of litigants in the act of justice and the
substantial social and human costs, meaning a high use of time and financial reso urces. All these
aspects have led to the establishment of a climate of distrust in the eff ectiveness of the criminal
justice act. The main issues that the criminal justice current system are facing are related to the
overcharging prosecution and courts, the excessive duration of the proceedings, the unjustified
delay of the causes and failure to complete the cases due to procedural reasons.
PhD Candidate, “Nicolae Titulescu University” of Űucharest (e-mail: av.nadiacantemir@yahoo.com).
1 Statement of reasons, www.just.ro.

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL