The history of U.S. arguments is rather opaque, not least because negotiations were deemed inappropriate in most countries and jurisdictions until the late 1960s. Some of the first arguments took place during the colonial era during the Salem Witch Trials in 1692, when the accused witches were told that they would live if they were confessed, but would be executed if they did not. The judges of Salem wanted to promote the confession, and to discover other witches, they wanted the avowed witches to testify against others. The guilty verdict saved many witches accused of execution. Later, the Salem Witch Trials were used to illustrate one of the strongest arguments against pleas: that the practice sometimes leads innocent defendants to plead guilty. Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown may agree to withdraw certain charges against the accused in exchange for a guilty plea. It has become a standard procedure for certain offences such as obstruction of driving. In the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed summarily or by charge before the accused makes his or her plea. If the Crown chooses to proceed summarily and the accused then pleads not guilty, the Crown cannot change its choice. As a result, the Crown is not in a position to offer summary proceedings in exchange for an admission of guilt.
In Estonia, arguments were launched in the 1990s: the sentence is reduced in exchange for confessions and avoiding most trials. Arguments are permitted for offences punishable by more than four years in prison. Normally, a 25% discount is granted. [Citation required] Tariff negotiations are probably the most common type of advocacy. A common example is that of an accused charged with murder and imprisoned for decades. In that case, the prosecutor could propose to drop the murder charge and have him plead guilty to manslaughter. Because manslaughter is an act that causes death but is not premeditated, it generally carries a lesser sentence. These primary justifications offer all the advantages for the actors involved: the court, the prosecutor and the accused, but do not naturally offer a benefit to the public or take no steps towards a truly just result. It is for this reason – and for other moral, ethical and constitutional reasons – that many in the legal field have openly questioned the bargaining system. It is customary to distinguish between explicit and implicit arguments. Express negotiations take place when an accused or his or her representative negotiates directly with a prosecutor, judge or (very rarely) another official on the benefits that may follow the introduction of an admission of guilt.
Implicit negotiations, on the other hand, take place without any personal negotiation. Public servants – particularly judges – establish a model for dealing with defendants who plead guilty more leniently than those who exercise the right to a trial, and the accused therefore expect convictions to be rewarded. Poland has also adopted a limited form of advocacy, which applies only to minor offences (no more than 10 years` imprisonment). The procedure is referred to as a “voluntary submission to a sentence” and allows the court to render an agreed sentence without verifying the evidence, which significantly shortens the trial. Certain concrete conditions must be met at the same time: in accordance with Article 217 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor is obliged to consult the victim and inform him before the end of the argument. In addition, under the instructions of the Georgian Crown, the prosecutor is required to consider the interests of the victim and, as a general rule, to enter into the plea contract after compensation for the damage.