2. The purpose of this agreement can only relate to the legal consequences of the judgment and related judgments, other procedural measures related to the conduct of the underlying adjudication procedure, and the conduct of the parties during the proceedings. A confession is an integral part of any negotiated agreement. The guilty verdict and reform and prevention measures should not be negotiated. The Court appointed an expert to examine whether the formal pleading provisions had been applied in practice. Professor Carsten Altenhain, from the University of Dusseldorf, led interviews with hundreds of judges, prosecutors and advocates. The results were not encouraging: the wording is somewhat opaque, even in German – phrases such as “free assessment” of evidence and “reform and prevention measures” are technical terms that have no direct English equivalents. It is essential that this regulation strikes a balance between the principles of German criminal justice and the reality of the agreement. The judge must always have full control of the proceedings, the accused`s confessions are not the only basis for the admission of guilt, the judge can invalidate the agreement if the circumstances change, and the parties to the case may participate. In the United States, the entire criminal justice system is supposed to encourage oral arguments: the penalties are harsh, which encourages defendants to seek agreement. Deals are enforceable in court and can be verified by an appelal court in certain circumstances.

The United States even allows the accused to plead guilty to crimes they claim did not commit: in an alleged plea by Alford (named after the accused in a trial), the accused appears in court, declares that he did not commit the crime, but then admits that the prosecutor`s office has sufficient evidence to try him beyond a reasonable doubt. That`s enough to make the plea. In the United States, 94% of criminal proceedings under public law and 97% of all federal criminal proceedings are now resolved through oral arguments. As the graph above shows, there is a scary incentive to deal with your case. If you insist on a trial, you will probably be severely punished. The new law was challenged in the Federal Constitutional Court, which issued its opinion in 2013. The press release on the decision is available in English and almost all of the original decision (g) itself. In general, the Court found that the new Pleading Act provided adequate protection of the defendants` rights: (3) The Tribunal announces the content of the negotiated agreement. It may also indicate an upper and lower limit of the sentence, in the context of a free assessment of all the circumstances of the case and in the case of general considerations of conviction. Participants will have the opportunity to express themselves.

The negotiated agreement is reached if the defendant and the prosecutor approve the court`s proposal. To anchor it, the Tribunal quashed the three convictions that were at the centre of the proceedings because they were confessions that were not sufficiently verified to ensure accuracy and completeness, or because the judge did not reserve the exclusive right to establish a debt on exhibits. The Federal Constitutional Court has thus sent a clear signal (g) to the preliminary bodies: to respect legal standards or to face a wave of convictions based on pleadings. 1. In appropriate cases, the court may reach an agreement with the participants on the outcome of the proceedings, in accordance with the following subsections….