Is the Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full? An Exploratory Study of Defence Lawyers’ Constructions of Plea Negotiations and Accused Persons’ Rights within the Ontario Criminal Justice System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Plea bargaining is a pervasive practice in North American legal systems, as well as internationally. In Canada, the majority of criminal cases are disposed of by plea negotiations. Although plea negotiations are a staple within the Canadian criminal justice system, the practice has been continually critiqued in relation to accused persons’ rights. Scholarship existing on the topic typically suggests that plea bargaining negatively impacts accused persons because of the existence of a trial penalty. Using a descriptive exploratory methodology, the present study conducted in-depth interviews with 25 defence lawyers from across Ontario to understand how they construct the trial penalty and the role of remorse and accused persons’ rights with respect to plea bargaining. The present study found that from the perspective of lawyers it is not simply that a trial penalty either ‘exists’ or ‘does not exist’. Rather, their voices point to the deep and complex layers that exist within the practices of plea negotiations, trials, and sentencing. There is no simple formula that a lawyer can use to determine how things will turn out at trial. Instead, various factors, such as the nature of the offence, the offender, witnesses, complainant, court time, court resources, and the economic and administrative demands of an overburdened justice system interact together to create a complex dynamic that the lawyer must assess and present to the client. Ultimately, running a trial is presented to the client as a gamble; yet, in many instances taking the gamble was constructed as being worth the risk. However, findings from the present study also demonstrate that while lawyers continuously expressed the importance of trials, the reality of the situation is that accused persons, for a wide variety of reasons, are often incentivized to plead guilty, even when it is not in their best interest. These decisions have tremendous impacts on the lives of those accused of criminal offences or awaiting trial. Further, certain disadvantaged accused may be more greatly impacted by the criminal justice system, particularly Indigenous and Black populations who are overrepresented within the incarcerated population, as well as accused persons from low socioeconomic status and those who are remanded to custody awaiting trial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».