In 2009, in a case on whether plea evidence in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal trial (297/2008 H), the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Hejesteret) unanimously ruled that the arguments were prima fa. under Danish law[44], 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). [44] 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. [46] [44] Following a Supreme Court of Canada decision imposing strict deadlines for the resolution of criminal cases (18 months for provincial court cases and thirty months for Supreme Court cases), several provinces initiated and intensified measures to maximize the number of small criminal proceedings resolved by pleas. The question of the extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been the subject of an action. Many researches have focused on relatively unproven cases where innocence has subsequently been proven, such as successful appeals to murder and rape on the basis of DNA evidence, which are generally atypical for trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to examine the real reactions of innocent people in general when faced with real advocacy decisions.
A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a true controlled advocacy situation, rather than requiring theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research. [14] She put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact man of the order (and knew it), and some were innocent, but were apparently confronted with solid evidence of guilt and had no verifiable evidence of innocence. Each subject was presented with evidence of guilt and offered the choice between reviewing an academic ethics committee and perhaps a great deal of punishment with respect to additional courses and other effect, or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter “sentence.” The study showed that, as predicted in the court statistics, about 90% of the accused, who were actually guilty, decided to enter a plea and plead guilty. It also noted that about 56% of those who were truly innocent (and who knew him in private) also make their pleas and plead guilty for reasons such as prevention of formal judicial proceedings, insecurity, the possibility of significant damage to future personal projects or the withdrawal of the domestic environment due to remediation courses. The authors said: [14] Yes, that`s it. Most trials end with oral arguments. These means are contracts. After signing, the commitments of the agreement must be respected.