Abstract

Plea bargaining has become a vital tool in contemporary criminal justice systems, providing a workable answer to backlogs of cases and drawn-out trials. In exchange for the prosecution making concessions, the accused consents to enter a guilty plea to a reduced charge or accept a lighter punishment. Plea bargaining poses serious ethical and legal issues that require careful consideration, despite its pragmatic benefits, which include easing court overcrowding, accelerating justice, and conserving state funds. This study investigates the ethical and legal ramifications of plea bargaining in order to better understand its dual aspects. Plea bargains can, from an ethical perspective, lead to injustices in the administration of justice, particularly when the balance of power between the defence and the prosecution is off. Accused people may be forced to accept bargains out of fear, a lack of funds, or a lack of legal knowledge, especially if they come from marginalized backgrounds. Such situations run the risk of compromising the voluntary consent concept and could result in erroneous convictions. Additionally, because bargaining moves the emphasis from factual guilt to negotiated solutions, the approach raises concerns about the dilution of truth-seeking in criminal cases. In terms of law, the study examines the ways in which different countries have enacted laws and applied plea bargaining, with a focus on the US, UK, and India. It explores the statutory frameworks, judicial supervision, and procedural safeguards intended to defend against abuse while maintaining equity and openness. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, established plea bargaining in India, however it is only applicable to specific types of offenses

Keywords