The third type of plea is the trial of the charges in which the accused, who face several counts, can plead guilty to fewer charges. The charges should not be the same: the prosecutor may drop all charges or charges in exchange for a guilty plea on the remaining charges. Since counting negotiations apply only to accused people facing multiple counts, this is the least common form of haggling. In Japan, oral arguments were previously prohibited by law, although sources reported that prosecutors were illegally offering oral arguments to the accused in exchange for their confessions.     Author Martin Yant speaks of the use of coercion in oral arguments: plea agreements have been limited in Germany.  However, an admission of guilt in the German criminal proceedings is not exactly equivalent.  In 2009, in a case in which it was questioned whether evidence of a plea in the United States was permitted in a Danish criminal trial (297/2008 H), the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Hejesteret) unanimously ruled that the oral arguments were excellent. under Danish law, but that witnesses can testify independently in the specific case (provided that the trial considers the possibility to be false or, at the very least, influenced by the advantages of the plea).  However, the Supreme Court has indicated that Danish law contains mechanisms similar to oral arguments, such as. B 10 of the Danish Penal Code (Danish: penalfeloven), which stipulates that a sentence can be reduced if the offender provides an offence that contributes to the resolution of another crime committed by others, or .
23 bis of the Danish Competition Act (Danish: konkurrenceloven), which stipulates that someone may ask to avoid a fine or criminal prosecution for participation in an agreement if it provides information on the cartel that the authorities cannot make at this stage.   The introduction in 2004 of a limited form of pleas (appearance on prior admission of guilt or CRPC, often summarized as pleading guilty) was highly controversial in France. Under this system, the Crown could offer suspects of relatively minor offences a maximum sentence of one year in prison; agreement, if accepted, had to be accepted by a judge. Opponents, usually lawyers and left-wing political parties, argued that the arguments would seriously violate the rights of the defence, the long-standing constitutional right to the presumption of innocence, the rights of suspects in custody and the right to a fair trial. 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. There are certain concrete conditions that must be met at the same time: a plea, also known as advocacy or advocacy, is an alternative and consensual method of regulating criminal proceedings. A plea agreement means the resolution of a dispute without trial, where the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge, a lighter sentence or the dismissal of certain related charges. (Article 209 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure) Plea`s bargains were rare in early American history. The judges seemed surprised when the accused offered to plead guilty, and they tried to convince them to go to court.
In 1832, however, oral arguments became commonplace in Boston, when violations of public regulations could be expected to be less severe if they pleaded guilty. Until 1850, the practice had spread to the courts, and it became a routine for the accused to plead guilty in exchange for the dismissal of certain charges or other agreements agreed with the prosecutor. Perhaps the first systematic use of plea bargains, Boston`s bargains were usually for victimless offenses, so the prosecutor ignored the concerns of the victims