What is plea bargaining?
In simple terms, a plea bargain is a deal which is offered by the prosecutor to the accused in which the accused gets some incentives for pleading guilty. Typically, the incentives are either lesser charges or less than the maximum sentence to the original charge. It is seen as an attempt to reduce the burden on the justice system as a case is solved even before going to trial. Apart from this,supporters also cite its information gathering value about the other accomplice of the accused. Recently, the Pakistani-American terror suspect David Coleman Headley pleaded guilty and agreed to share information about fellow Lashkar terrorist Tahawwur Hussain Rana.In exchange, he will escape the death penalty, which was the maximum sentence in six of the 12 counts of charges against him.
What are the different types of plea bargain?
There are three types of plea bargaining, namely charge bargaining, count bargaining and sentence bargaining. In charge bargaining, the defendant pleads guilty to a less serious crime. For example, a person accused of burglary might be offered to plead guilty of attempted burglary. In count bargaining, the accused gets the punishment for a lesser number of charges. For instance, an accused charged with drunk driving and driving with an illegal license might be offered to plead guilty just for drunk driving. Sentence bargaining is used for relatively fewer incidents only after it is approved by the trial judge. The sentence bargain helps the prosecutor in conviction of those accused with serious charges, while assuring the defendant of an acceptable sentence less severe than the maximum penalty for the crime.
Which countries allow plea bargaining?
Plea bargaining is most commonly used in the US, where it is said to be the most common method of case disposal. Other than the US, it is also used in England, Wales and Australia,where it is permitted to the limited extent of allowing the accused to plead guilty to some charges, in return for which the prosecutor will drop the remaining charges. Plea bargaining was introduced in India by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and came into force from January 2006. It applies only to cases in which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for up to seven years. However, offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country and offences committed against women or children below the age of 14 are excluded.
What are the criticisms against the procedure?
Using plea bargaining to reduce the burden on the judicial system is criticised as a sacrifice of legal principles for administrative considerations. It is argued that plea bargaining is soft on crime as the guilty are not punished properly for the crimes they commit.Others argue that it takes away the right of the accused to a fair trial,the counter to which is that the accused are adults who should be given the option of foregoing the right in return for benefits and that it was not for the state to force the right upon the accused.
What does the prisoners dilemma have to do with plea bargaining?
Prisoners dilemma is a problem in game theory demonstrating why two people might not cooperate even if it is in their best interest. Suppose two people are arrested for a crime and the police are not sure they have sufficient evidence to prove it. The prosecutors offer deals to both of them. If one testifies against the other, the other will get a 10-year sentence, while the one testifying will be set free if the partner remains silent. If one confesses to the crime and testifies against the partner, the confessor gets a 5 year sentence, while the partner gets 10. If both remain silent, a six-month sentence is all that they will serve. It is quite obvious that the third option is in the best interests of both.However, game theory shows that the most rational action for each is to testify against the other. The worst possibility is the case of a guilty and an innocent person arrested for the same offence. Here, game theory suggests that the chances are that the guilty person will confess and testify against the innocent, while the innocent person will remain silent and hence be awarded the maximum sentence.
========================================
LEGALLY SPEAKING - Dont we need law to punish politicos for breach of trust
The great Indian political factory has never failed to spring surprises on common man. But giant anacon-da shaped garland made up of Rs.1000 denomination currency notes has surely caught leaders by surprise. They are surprised not by the number of notes in garland, for they have seen similar amounts being donated to their parties by industrialists, but by the ingenuity of the explanation about the source of the money a token of love and affection to the "beloved leader" from Dalits who are poorest of the poor. A vast section of poor still live below poverty line and survive on ration irregularly distributed through a system that stinks of corruption. He could hardly have seen a single note of Rs 1,000 denomination not to talk of possessing and then donating it. Did wisecrack say the common man and his brethren donated these seemingly uncountable number of currency notes to their "beloved" leader. Political leaders getting elevated to the status of demigod is nothing new in India,a practice abhorred by none other than the greatest Dalit leader, B R Ambedkar.But, that is a little later. For, the common man deserves first mention. The common man, since independence, been handing over the keys of governance to politicians thinking these merchants who sell dreams would one day make these a reality for him. Mired in those dreams, he continues to endure hardships which have become intrinsic to his life with unfathomable resilience. How else could one explain his silence when prices of food articles and sugar went up sharply Why did he ignore an important politician's teasing comment, no one would die if he did not consume sugar.
But the moot question is: Should politicians be allowed to continue selling dreams to gullible common man Politicians have business interests in almost every kind of industrial activity, from slaughter houses to sugar factories, from mining to money lending. The contrast between wealth of the politicians and plight of the common man is starker than day and night. There is not yet a law or a legal machinery which would fasten liability on a politician who reneges on his electioneve promise. Defeat in the next election for non-performance is no punishment. It is just a consequence. Why should politicians who trick the common man to hand over the keys of governance on the promise of bringing them prosperity be not punished for breach of trust. Most politicians do not appear to even know the basic amenities which a state must provide to the common man. It was crystallised nicely by the Supreme Court in 1983 in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case [1984 (3) SCC 161]. It had said every citizen was guaranteed under the Constitution to lead a dignified life, which included "protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse; opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity; educational facilities; just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief".
----------------------------------------------------
Recall communal violence Bill: AIMPLB Claims It Would Lead To Curtailment Of Civic Rights As It Gives Blanket Power To Police, Govt Officials
Lucknow: Calling on its constituents to drum up public support against the draconian piece of law in the making, All India Muslim Personal Law Board has demanded recall of Communal Violence (Prevention and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2009. A resolution condemning the Bill which would in effect curb the civic rights of the minorities was unanimously passed at the 21st annual convention of the prime body consisting ulema,scholars and members of civil society. Nothing short of scrapping the Bill will do, board general secretary Abdul Rahim Qureshi announced on Sunday. What is urgently required is a complete redraft in consultation with the representative bodies and secularminded people. The basic objection pertained to an unbridled authority granted to the police and administrative officers under the Bill, Qureshi said. Conferring such power on law-enforcing agencies would only amount to curtailment of the civic rights. It will also result in untold misery to the Muslim community which has always suffered worst during any riot or communal skirmish, he said quoting the resolution. The board, he said, has convened a meeting of its select delegates including its MP/MLA members in Delhi in mid-April to have further discussions on the issue. Later, a memorandum will be sent to the Centre for desired action, he said. The apex body of Muslim outfits also berated the harassment and witch-hunting of Muslim youth in the name of counter-terrorism measures.Number of fake cases implicating this class are growing, said Qureshi. There are umpteen reported instances in our knowledge where young men from minority community were arrested, tortured and put behind the bars though later released by the courts as the charges couldnt be substantiated.This must stop, he said, adding that the same abominable trend being observed globally was also a matter of grave concern.
Significantly, AIMPLB which mulled everything touching the minorities within and beyond the national boundaries, failed to address the concern of 50% of the populace. The long-standing deadlock on the triple talaq has been allowed to persist with body's stout refusal to entertain any debate on it. Similarly, any mention of the womens reservation Bill was also skirted under the plea of jurisdictional lacuna. Qureshi reiterated the AIMPLBs limitations of stepping beyond its mandate which confined it to Shariat and family matters alone and recounted instead inclusion of greater number of women in the boards executive bodies as a gender-friendly act to allay the female fears.
Babri title suit
The 60-year-old Babri title suit could soon be over. The status report on all the cases concerning the mosque, presented before the AIMPLB by its lawyer and senior member Zafaryab Jilani, hinted at the possibility. The high court has already expressed hope that if the arguments are wrapped up by May 2010, the judgment would be delivered within next three months, Jilani stated in the 11-page document.
Muslim panel okays more women representation in its executive body
The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has amended its constitution to increase the representation of women in its highest decision making body. The move would increase the number of women in AIMPLBs executive council to five. Earlier, Begum Naseem Iqtedar Ali, a founder AIMPLB member, was the only woman in the bodys executive council. Rukhsana Lari and Safia Nasim from Lucknow, Noorjehan Shakil from Kolkata and Hyderabad-based Asma Zohra were nominated to the board at its general body meeting on Saturday. The move is seen as the 37-year-old AIMPLBs attempt to counter the rising popularity of the bodies like All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and Akhil Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, which have defied AIMPLB for its male-centric approach. The separate law board for the Muslim women was set up in February 2005. An increase in the strength of women in the body would make the body more gender sensitive, said a source. The lone female voice so far was hardly heard. But the increase in the number of women would change the scenario. The boards constitution was also amended to increase the strength of its executive committee from 41 to 51 during the boards three-day 21st national convention. The board president would nominate 10 new members, while the 40 others in the executive committee will be elected.
----------------------------------------------------------
(source-toi)
No comments:
Post a Comment