英语论文网

the dispute at issue in the case. [44]

In plea bargain mediation, the mediator would be able to facilitate a conversation between the State and the defendant exploring the interests of the State and the interests of the defendant. The mediator would help identify the State's underlying interests of the particular case being mediated. These interests would likely include the obvious interests of public safety or upholding the property rights of others, as well as preventing a defendant from committing further crimes. [45] It would put the prosecutorial discretion in check and forcing defence attorneys to do their jobs effectively, accuracy and fairness return, as does the confidence in the adjudication process. In such a scheme a judge is destined to play the role of mediator. [46]

In the criminal justice system, the judge functions as “a check on procedural injustice,” a force that prevents the state from using its immense power to railroad defendants, when this force is removed from the process, prosecutorial power becomes essentially limitless, denigrating the fairness of plea bargain negotiations. [47] The lack of training for mediators in the criminal context is a major concern. Just as in civil mediation, mediators in the criminal arena must be trained. [48] Judges who wish to be mediators must have training.

Detractors of the notion of introducing mediation in plea bargaining have said that it “gives rise to the perception that sentences can be negotiated, but the legal process must be seen in public, and anything seen to be done behind closed doors must weaken public confidence in the administration of justice. Furthermore, it inhibits the judge from handing down a more severe sentence when all the relevant facts are disclosed prior to sentencing.” [49]

In India, rightfully the practice of mediation is followed. Right from the very beginning the application has to be presented to the judge, who is the focal point of the entire process. He sets the ball into motion, by asking all the interested parties (accused and the victim) and others which have direct connection with the investigation of the case to chalk out a disposition with the court overseeing the entire process, nonchalantly acting as a mediator. The process as such breeds confidence for unlike US where only prosecutor calls the shots for being in such a domineering position, so many actors are involved to bring about as much fairness as necessary in the process of plea bargaining.

Conclusion

In India, the Concept of Plea Bargaining has been adapted and implemented in our country because of its success in USA and other countries of the world. Such adaptation of Plea bargaining is not a bad idea but a culture has to be developed as even in the most developed countries that the entire bargain are not honest as in some instances it is mixed with corruption. This is a happy development of a law which may provide the much needed relief to the overloaded criminal justice system of the country. Chief Justice Burger was an open proponent of plea bargaining. He said the practice should not be abolished because it helps with the increase of caseloads. Chief Justice Burger also points out other advantages of plea bargaining, such as: 1) It allows for the best allocation of resources to reach a mutual end result, 2) it allows for greater flexibility in the system, 3) it allows本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。