Bargaining for Justice: The Road towards Prosecutorial Accountability in the Plea Bargaining Process
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article draws on doctrinal as well as comparative legal methods to argue that the current devices designed to constrain and guide prosecutorial discretion in Canada—case law, provincial Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”), and Crown Policy Manuals (“Manuals”)—risk prioritizing expedience over procedural fairness and ought to be reformed. We look to the German model as an alternative avenue for reform of prosecutorial discretion while also raising limitations associated with this model. This article proceeds in three parts. Part I contextualizes prosecutorial discretion by outlining the nature of this discretion and its place in the criminal justice system broadly and the plea bargaining process more specifically. Part II sets out the inadequacies of the current devices and notes their inability to constrain and guide prosecutorial discretion during the plea bargaining process. Part III explores alternative avenues for reform of prosecutorial discretion in the plea bargaining process by engaging in a comparative analysis inspired by the German model of prosecutorial oversight and assessing the strengths and limitations of this model. This model embraces a number of policies and procedures aimed at regulating the plea bargaining process, including note-taking during plea discussions and motivating plea recommendations. The German model is most notably lauded for its transparency, which can in turn enable greater prosecutorial and procedural accountability. While it might be argued that additional regulations imposed on the Canadian process risk grinding the gears of criminal justice to a halt, we argue that our proposed avenues for reform do not impose time-consuming burdens on prosecutors, particularly when these changes are combined with policies and practices that favour decriminalization. As will be seen, prosecutors in Canada have more discretionary powers to charge individuals with offences, and in this respect, implementing the proposed new measures and combining them with additional diversion and decriminalization strategies can realistically lead to a more efficient and equitable process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it