Plea bargaining and the trial penalty in Canada
by Daniel Alati
International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies (IJHRCS), Vol. 3, No. 3, 2015

Abstract: This article takes an in-depth look into sentencing and into a concept that seems to be inherent within it, that is, the trial penalty. It seeks to answer the question "Should there be a trial penalty?". In doing so, it begins by analysing the pros and cons of plea bargaining and argues that the weight of the disadvantages of the process, taken together with the need to respect entrenched constitutional rights regarding the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, mean that a trial penalty should not exist. It is then argued that while the intuitive existence of an explicit trial penalty is accepted by many within the system, there is a lack of empirical evidence to prove said existence. The article concludes by offering possible solutions to various problems associated with the plea process, as it is currently practised.

Online publication date: Wed, 14-Oct-2015

The full text of this article is only available to individual subscribers or to users at subscribing institutions.

 
Existing subscribers:
Go to Inderscience Online Journals to access the Full Text of this article.

Pay per view:
If you are not a subscriber and you just want to read the full contents of this article, buy online access here.

Complimentary Subscribers, Editors or Members of the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies (IJHRCS):
Login with your Inderscience username and password:

Username:        Password:          Forgotten your password?

Want to subscribe?
A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable). See our Orders page to subscribe.

If you still need assistance, please email subs@inderscience.com