Wisconsin Plea Deals are rarely advantageous in the following cases: theoretical work based on the prisoners` dilemma is one of the reasons why Plea Bargaining is banned in many countries. 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] If the court is satisfied that the accused fully recognizes the consequences of the pleading agreement and that he or she has been represented by the Defence Counsel, his or her will is expressed in full compliance with the legal requirements, without deception or coercion, even if there is sufficient irrefutable evidence of the conviction and the agreement is reached on a legitimate judgment – the court approves the pleading agreement and pronounces a guilty verdict. If any of the above conditions are not met, the court refuses approval of the pleading agreement and refers the case back to the prosecutor. (Article 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia). Plea Bargaining (Georgian: საპროცესსოშშყ60თანმმება, literally “Plea Agreement”) was introduced in Georgia in 2004. The content of Georgian pleadings is similar in the United States and other common law jurisdictions. [49] Plea Bargaining, as formal legislation, was introduced in Pakistan by the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999, an anti-corruption law. A peculiarity of this plea is that the accused asks for accepted guilt and offers to return the proceeds of corruption defined by investigators and prosecutors.

After approval by the president of the National Accountability Bureau, the application is submitted to the court which decides whether it should be accepted or not. If the request for summons is accepted by the court, the accused will be convicted, but he will not be convicted if he is on trial, nor subject to a sentence previously pronounced by a lower court when he appeals. The accused is disqualified from participating in elections, holding public office or obtaining a loan from a bank; The accused is also removed from office when a government official. In cases such as a car collision involving possible civil liability against the defendant, the defendant may agree to plead “no challenge” or “guilty with a civil reservation, which is essentially an admission of guilt without admitting civil liability. The main principle of negotiations is that it must be based on the free will of the defendant, on the equality of the parties and on the advanced protection of the rights of the defendant: under Italian law, a settlement does not need to admit guilt (there is no pleading in Italy); Therefore, a negotiating judgment is only an acceptance of the sentence in exchange for the closure of the investigation and trial and has no binding relevance in other trials, especially in civil trials, where parties to the same facts invoke the effects of civil liability and other criminal proceedings in which the accomplices of the accused, who had requested and received a hearing sentence, the State Policy Commission of the [53] Another situation in which an innocent defendant can plead guilty is the case of an accused who cannot post bail and who is kept in detention in a prison or detention center. . . .