The complexities of the criminal justice system hide a negotiation practice that has resulted in many innocent defendants pleading guilty: plea bargaining. Plea bargaining involves defendants agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for reduced sentences or edited charges (Gormley (2019)). However, the practice raises serious concerns about systematic judicial fairness and transparency (Leverick (2014)). This compromises the integrity of the justice system.
This presentation researches the harsh realities of the Scottish criminal justice system. It will highlight the immense pressures that defendants face and the manipulative external influences driving them to plead guilty. It explores Scotland’s focus on efficiency which has hindered the thorough examination of individual cases and weakened the protection of defendants' fundamental rights. Academic discourse (Gormley (2019), Leverick (2014), Darbyshire (2000)) has addressed the key arguments surrounding the debate. Those in support argue that plea negotiation spares victims from the trial, promotes efficiency and allows the accused to showcase remorse (Gormely (2022), Leverick (2004)). Those against argue that plea considerations violate the presumption of innocence and result in wrongful convictions (Gormley (2019), Leverick (2004)). Considering these primary debates, this presentation conducts a comparative analysis of the English with the Scottish system to identify challenges specific to Scotland and provide alternatives which improve the current system.
Thus, this presentation advocates for a more enhanced and transparent approach which ensures that justice is not compromised. It emphasizes the importance of protecting defendants from manipulative strategies and wrongful convictions while promoting a legal system which upholds judicial fairness and ethics.