1932

Abstract

This article documents the diffusion of plea bargaining and other mechanisms to reach criminal convictions without a trial and argues that their spread implies what this article terms an administratization of criminal convictions in many corners of the world. Criminal convictions have been administratized in two ways: () Trial-avoiding mechanisms have given a larger role to nonjudicature, administrative officials in the determination of who gets convicted and for which crimes, and () these decisions are made in proceedings that do not include a trial with its attached defendants’ rights. The article also proposes a way this phenomenon could be quantitatively measured by articulating the rate of administratization of criminal convictions, a metric to allow for comparison among different jurisdictions. The article then presents cross-national data from 26 jurisdictions on their rate of administratization of criminal convictions and different hypotheses that may help explain variation across jurisdictions on this rate.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255
2021-01-13
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/4/1/annurev-criminol-032317-092255.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams DS. 2011. Is pleading really a bargain?. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8:200–21
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abrams DS. 2013. Putting the trial penalty on trial. Duquesne Law Rev 51:777–85
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aebi MF, Akdeniz G, Barclay G, Campistol C, Caneppele S et al. 2017. European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2014 Helsinki, Finl: Acad. Bookst, 5th ed.., 2nd rev. print .
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Alschuler AW. 1968. The prosecutor's role in the plea bargaining. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 36:50–112
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Altenhain K, Dietmeier F, May M 2013. Die Praxis der Absprachen in Strafverfahren Baden-Baden, Ger: Nomos
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Altenhain K, Hagemeier I, Haimerl M, Stammen K 2007. Die Praxis der Absprachen in Wirtschafstrafverfahren Baden-Baden, Ger: Nomos
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ancelot L, Doriat-Duban M. 2010. La procedure de comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité: l'éclairage de l'économie du droit sur l'équité du plaider coupable. Arch. Politique Crim. 32:269–87
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ashworth A, Roberts JV. 2013. The origins and nature of the sentencing guidelines in England and Wales. In Sentencing Guidelines. Exploring the English Model A Ashworth, JV Roberts 1–12 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bachmaier L. 2018. The European Court of Human Rights on negotiated justice and coercion. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim. Justice 26:236–59
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baldwin J, McConville M. 1977. Negotiated Justice: Pressures to Plead Guilty London: Martin Robertson
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baldwin J, McConville M. 1979. Plea bargaining and plea negotiation in England. Law Soc. Rev. 13:287–307
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bandyopadhyay S, McCannon BC. 2014. The effect of the election of prosecutors on criminal trials. Public Choice 161:141–56
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Barkow R. 2006. Separation of powers and the criminal law. Stanford Law Rev 58:989–1054
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Beard J. 2017. Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea Brief. Pap. 5974, House Commons Libr London:
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bergman M, Fondevila G, Langer M 2017. ¿A quién y cómo se juzga en la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires? Una radiografía de la Justicia Nacional en lo Criminal y Correccional Buenos Aires: UNTREF
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bonta J, Harris H, Zinger I, Carriere D 1996. The Crown Files Research Project: A Study of Dangerous Offenders Ottawa: Solicit. Gen. Can.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brook CA, Fiannaca B, Harvey D, Marcus P, McEwan J, Pomerance R 2016. A comparative look at plea bargaining in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States. William Mary Law Rev 57:1147–224
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bushway S, Redlich A, Norris R 2014. An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial. .” Criminology 52:723–54
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Carlson KB. 2018. Trading on guilt: the judicial logic of plea bargains at the ICTY and its transplant to Serbia and Bosnia. International Practices of Criminal Justice: Social and Legal Perspectives MJ Christensen, R Levi 131–48 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng KK. 2013. Pressures to plead guilty: factors affecting plea decisions in Hong Kong's Magistrates’ Court. Brit. J. Criminol. 53:257–75
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cheng KK. 2016. Public approval of plea bargaining in Hong Kong: the effects of offender characteristics. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 26:31–48
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cheng KK, Chui WH, Young SNM, Ong R 2018. Why do criminal trials “crack”? An empirical investigation of late guilty pleas in Hong Kong. Asian J. Comp. Law 13:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ciocchini P. 2018. Reformers’ unfulfilled promises: accountability deficits in Argentinean criminal courts. Int. J. Law Context 14:22–42
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Coalit. Indep. Transpar. Judic. 2013. Application of Plea Bargaining in Georgia Tbilisi, Georgia: Coalit. Indep. Transpar. Judic http://ewmi-prolog.org/images/files/3902Coalition_Criminal_Law_WG_Research_ENG_9th_forum.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cohen SA, Doob AN. 1989. Public attitudes to plea bargaining. Crim. Law Q. 32:85–109
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Colson R, Field S. 2011. The Transformation of Criminal Justice: Comparing France with England and Wales Paris: L'Harmattan
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Combs N. 2007. Guilty Pleas in International Criminal Law: Constructing a Restorative Justice Approach Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Crespo AM. 2018. The hidden law of plea bargaining. Columbia Law Rev 118:1303–424
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Danet J, Brizais R, Lorvellec S 2013. La célérité de la réponse pénale. La Réponse Pénale: Dix ans de Traitement des Délits J Danet 255–96 Rennes, Fr: PUR
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dawes W, Harvey P, McIntosh B, Nunney F, Phillips A 2011. Attitudes to Guilty Plea Reductions London: Sentencing Counc. Engl. Wales
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dervan LE, Edkins VA. 2013. The innocent defendant's dilemma: an innovative empirical study of plea bargaining's innocence problem. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 103:11
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Desprez F. 2007. L'application de la comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité à Nimes et Béziers: au regard du principe de judiciarité. Arch. Politique Crim. 29:145–69
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Eisenstein J, Jacob H. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Court Boston, MA: Little Brown
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ericson RV, Baranek PM. 1982. The Ordering of Justice: A Study of Accused Persons as Dependants in the Criminal Process Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fair Trials 2017. The Disappearing Trial: Towards a Rights-Based Approach to Trial Waiver Systems London: Fair Trials https://www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-The-Disappearing-Trial.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Falcone Salas D. 2005. La absolución en el procedimiento abreviado. Rev. Derecho Pontif. Univ. Catól. Valparaíso 26:363–78
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Feeley M. 1979. The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fisher G. 2003. Plea Bargaining's Triumph: A History of Plea Bargaining in America Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Flynn A, Freiberg A. 2018. Plea Negotiations: Pragmatic Justice in an Imperfect World Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Fondevila G, Langer M, Bergman M, Vilalta C, Mejía A 2016. ¿Cómo se juzga en el Estado de México? Mexico City: CIDE
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldstein AS, Marcus M. 1977. The myth of judicial supervision in three “inquisitorial” systems: France, Italy, and Germany. Yale Law J 87:240–83
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gross SR. 2008. Convicting the innocent. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4:173–92
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Grunvald S. 2013. Les choix et schémas d'orientation. La réponse pénale: Dix ans de traitment des délits J Danet 83–112 Rennes, Fr: PUR
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hagan J. 1974. Parameters of criminal prosecution: an application of path analysis to a problem of criminal justice. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 65:536–44
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hassemer R, Hippler G. 1986. Informelle Absprachen in der Praxis des deutschen Strafverfahrens. Strafverteidiger 8:360–64
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Heberling JL. 1973. Conviction without trial. Anglo-Am. Law Rev. 2:428–72
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Herzog S. 2004. Plea bargaining: less covert, more public support. Crime Delinquency 50:590–614
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Heumann M. 1977. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges and Defense Attorneys Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hodgson J. 2015. Plea bargaining: a comparative analysis. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences JD Wright 226–31 Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Houllé R, Vaney G. 2017. La comparution sur reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité, une procedure pénale de plus en plus utilisée. Infostat Justice 157:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Jehle JM, Wade M 2006. Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems: The Rise of Prosecutorial Power Across Europe Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Johnson BD, King RD, Spohn C 2016. Sociolegal approaches to the study of guilty pleas and prosecution. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 12:479–95
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jonah B, Yuen L, Au-Yeung E, Paterson D, Dawson N et al. 1999. Front-line police officers’ practices, perceptions and attitudes about the enforcement of impaired driving laws in Canada. Accid. Anal. Prev. 31:421–43
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Kellough G, Wortley S. 2002. Demand for a plea: bail decisions and plea bargaining as commensurate decisions. Brit. J. Criminol. 42:186–210
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kergandberg E. 2012. European Court of the Human Rights: Court of Fourth Instance in Estonia? Paper presented at The Role of Supreme Courts in the Protection of Human Rights Conference, Riga, Latv May 2
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kim AC. 2015. Underestimating the trial penalty: an empirical analysis of the federal trial penalty and critique of the Abrams study. Miss. Law J. 84:1195–255
    [Google Scholar]
  57. King NJ, Wright RF. 2016. The invisible revolution in plea bargaining: managerial judging and judicial participating in negotiations. Tex. Law Rev. 95:325–97
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kohler-Hausmann I. 2014. Managerial justice and mass misdemeanors. Stanford Law Rev 66:611–93
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kohler-Hausmann I. 2018. Misdemeanorland: Criminal Courts and Social Control in an Age of Broken Windows Policing Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Kutateladze BL, Lawson VZ, Andiloro NR 2015. Does evidence really matter? An exploratory analysis of the role of evidence in plea bargaining in felony drug cases. Law Hum. Behav. 39:431–42
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kutateladze BL, Lynn V, Liang E 2012. Do Race and Ethnicity Matter in Prosecution? A Review of Empirical Studies New York: Vera Inst. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Laffranque J. 2015. European human rights and Estonia: one- or two-way street. Jurid. Int. 23:4–16
    [Google Scholar]
  63. LaFree GD. 1985. Adversarial and nonadversarial justice: a comparison of guilty pleas and trials. Criminology 23:289–312
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Langbein JH. 1979a. Land without plea bargaining: how the Germans do it. Mich. Law Rev. 78:204–25
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Langbein JH. 1979b. Understanding the short history of plea bargaining. Law Soc. Rev. 13:261–72
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Langbein JH, Weinreb LL. 1978. Continental criminal procedure: “myth” and reality. Yale Law J 87:1549–69
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Langer M. 2004. From legal transplants to legal translations: the globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard Int. Law J. 45:1–64
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Langer M. 2005. The rise of managerial judging in international criminal law. Am. J. Comp. Law 53:835–909
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Langer M. 2006. Rethinking plea bargaining: the practice and reform of prosecutorial adjudication in American criminal procedure. Am. J. Crim. Law 33:223–99
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Langer M. 2007. Revolution in Latin American criminal procedure: diffusion of legal ideas from the periphery. Am. J. Comp. Law 55::617–76
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Langer M, Sklansky DA 2017. Prosecutors and Democracy: A Cross-National Study New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lenoir A, Retiére JN, Trémeau C 2013. Des délits et de leurs auteurs. …. In La Réponse Pénale: Dix ans de Traitment des Délits J Danet 113–58 Rennes, Fr: PUR
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Lewis MK. 2009. Taiwan's new adversarial system and the overlooked challenge of efficiency-driven reforms. Va. J. Int. Law 49:651–726
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Locker T. 2015. Absprachen im Strafverfahren: Ein Überblick und alternative Verfahrensweisen Hamburg, Ger: Diplomica
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Luna E, Wade M. 2010. Prosecutors as judges. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 67:1413–532
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Luna E, Wade M 2012. The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Lynch GE. 1998. Our administrative system of criminal justice. Fordham Law Rev 66:2117–51
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lynch M. 2016. Hard Bargains: The Coercive Power of Drug Laws in Federal Courts New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Mann K. 1985. Defending White Collar Crime: A Portrait of Attorneys at Work New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. McConville M. 2002. Plea bargaining. The Handbook of the Criminal Justice System M McConville, G Wilson 353–77 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. McConville M, Choong S. 2011. Criminal Justice in China: An Empirical Inquiry Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  82. McEwan J. 2011. From adversarialism to managerialism: criminal justice in transition. Leg. Stud. 31:519–46
    [Google Scholar]
  83. McKinnon v. United States 2008. H.L. 59, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1739 (Lord Brown)
  84. Natapoff A. 2018. Punishment Without a Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal New York: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia App. No. 9043/05, Eur. Ct. H.R., Apr. 29, 2014
  86. Newman DJ. 1966. The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial Boston, MA: Little Brown
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Perrocheau V. 2010. La composition pénale et la comparution sur reconnaissance de culpabilité: quelles limites à l'omnipotence du parquet?. Droit Soc 74:55–71
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Piehl AM, Bushway SD. 2007. Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. J. Quant. Criminol. 23:105–25
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Pinard M. 2010. Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: confronting issues of race and dignity. N. Y. Univ. Law Rev. 85:457–534
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Pina-Sánchez J, Brunton-Smith I, Guanquang L 2020. Mind the step: a more insightful and robust analysis of the sentencing process in England and Wales under the new sentencing guidelines. Criminol. Crim. Justice 20:268301
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Ponce Chauca N. 2008. La reforma procesal penal en Perú: avances y desafíos a partir de las experiencias en Huaura y la Libertad Santiago: CEJA http://biblioteca.cejamericas.org/handle/2015/5138
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pouget P. 2013. La mise en place de la diversification du traitement des délits à travers la legislation. La réponse pénale: Dix ans de traitment des délits J Danet 49–81 Rennes, Fr: PUR
    [Google Scholar]
  93. R. Comm. Crim. Justice. 1993. Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice London: HMSO https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271971/2263.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  94. R v. Goodyear 2005. EWCA (Crim) 888
  95. R v. Hollington and Emmens 1986. 82 Crim. App 281
  96. Redlich AD, Summers A, Hoover S 2009. Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law Hum. Behav. 34:79–90
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Rehavi MM, Starr SB. 2014. Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences. J. Political Econ. 122:61320–54
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Riego C. 2008. Oral procedures and case management: the innovations of Chile's reform. Southwest. J. Law Trade Am. 14:339–56
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Riego C. 2017. El procedimiento abreviado en la ley 20.931. Politica Crim 12:1085–105
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Roberts J, Bradford B. 2015. Sentence reductions for a guilty plea in England and Wales: exploring new empirical trends. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 12:187–210
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Saas C, Lorvellec S, Gautron V 2013. Les sanctions pénales, une nouvelle distribution. La réponse pénale: Dix ans de traitment des délits J Danet 159–210 Rennes, Fr: PUR
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Salas Beteta C. 2011. La eficacia del proceso penal acusatorio en el Perú. Prolegómenos Derechos Valores 2:263–75
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Sánchez Mejía AL. 2017. Victims’ Rights in Flux: Criminal Justice Reform in Colombia Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Schünemann B. 1990. Absprachen im Strafverfahren? Grundlagen, Gegenstände und Grenzen. Gutachten B. zum 58 Juristentag Munich, Ger: C.H. Beck
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Semukhina OB, Reynolds KM. 2009. Plea bargaining implementation and acceptance in modern Russia. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 19:400–32
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sentencing Counc. 2017. Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea: Definitive Guideline London: Sentencing Counc https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Reduction-in-Sentence-for-Guilty-Plea-definitive-guideline-SC-Web.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Shermer LO, Johnson BD. 2010. Criminal prosecutions: examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. federal district courts. Justice Q 27:3394–430
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Siolek W. 1993. Neues zum Thema Verständigung im Strafverfahren. DriZ 1993:422–30
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Skolnick JH. 2011. Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books, 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Smith BP. 2005. Plea bargaining and the eclipse of the jury. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:131–49
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Smith DA. 1986. The plea bargaining controversy. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 77:949–68
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Solomon PH. 1983. Criminal Justice Policy, From Research to Reform Toronto: Butterworths
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Solomon PH. 2012. Plea bargaining Russian style. Demokratizatsiya 20:282–99
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Solomon PH. 2015. Post-Soviet criminal justice: the persistence of distorted neo-inquisitorialism. Theor. Criminol. 19:159–78
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Soubise L. 2018. Guilty pleas in an inquisitorial setting—an empirical study of France. J. Law Soc. 45:398–426
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Spamann H. 2015. Empirical comparative law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11:131–53
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Spohn C, Beichner D, Davis-Frenzel E 2001. Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: guarding the “gateway to justice. .” Soc. Probl. 48:2206–35
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Taubald C. 2009. Konsensuale erledigung von strafverfahren in Deutschland und Frankreich PhD Thesis, Univ. Tübingen, Ger .
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Thaman SC. 2010a. A typology of consensual criminal procedure: an historical and comparative perspective on the theory and practice of avoiding full criminal trials. World Plea Bargaining: Consensual Procedure and the Avoidance of the Full Criminal Trial SC Thaman 297–395 Durham, NC: Carol. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Thaman SC 2010b. World Plea Bargaining: Consensual Procedure and the Avoidance of the Full Criminal Trial Durham, NC: Carol. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Thaman SC. 2012. The penal order: prosecutorial sentencing as a model for criminal justice reform. The Prosecutor in Transnational Perspective E Luna, M Wade 156–75 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Thaxton S. 2013. Leveraging death. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 103:475–552
    [Google Scholar]
  123. The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi Case No. ICC-01/12–01/15, Judgment and Sentence (September 27, 2016)
  124. Tulkens F, Cartuyvels Y, Wattier I 2002. Negotiated justice. European Criminal Procedures M Delmas-Marty, JR Spencer 641–87 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Turner JI. 2006. Judicial participation in plea negotiations: a comparative view. Am. J. Comp. Law 54:199–267
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Turner JI. 2009. Plea Bargaining Across Borders New York: Aspen Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Turner JI, Weigend T. 2020. Negotiated case dispositions in Germany, England, and the United States. Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 1 K Ambos, A Duff, J Roberts, T Weigend 389–427 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Ulmer JT, Eisenstein J, Johnson BD 2009. Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Q 27:560–92
    [Google Scholar]
  129. UN Hum. Rights Comm. 2016. Commun. No. 2005/2010, CCPR/C/115/D/2005/2010, Feb. 19
  130. UN Off. Drugs Crime (UNODC). 2017. Criminal justice system process Statistics and Crime: UNODC https://dataunodc.un.org/crime/CJS_process
    [Google Scholar]
  131. US Dep. State. 2012. Country reports on human rights practices for 2011: Georgia Bur. Democr. Hum. Rights Labor Rep., US Dep. State Washington, DC: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/186565.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  132. US Dep. State. 2015. Country reports on human rights practices for 2014: Georgia Bur. Democr. Hum. Rights Labor Rep., US Dep. State Washington, DC: https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/236738.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  133. US Dep. State. 2018. Country reports on human rights practices for 2017: Georgia Bur. Democr. Hum. Rights Labor Rep., US Dep. State Washington, DC: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Georgia.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Van Cleave RA. 1997. An offer you can't refuse? Punishment without trial in Italy and the United States: the search for truth and an efficient criminal justice system. Emory Int. Law Rev. 11:419–69
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Vance SE, Oleson JC. 2013. Displaced discretion: the effects of sentencing guidelines on prosecutors’ charge bargaining in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 25:347–77
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Verdun-Jones SN. 2016. Plea bargaining. Criminal Justice in Canada: A Reader JV Roberts, M Grossman 168–84 Toronto: Nelson Educ, 5th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Warsmann JL. 2005. Rapport d'information de la commission des lois sur la mise en appli-cation de la loi n° 2004–204 du 9 mars 2004 portant adaptation de la justice aux évolutions de la criminalité Inf. Rep. AN 2378, Assem. Natl Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  138. World Prison Brief. 2020. Highest to lowest: prison population data WPB London: http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error