Some argue that the oral arguments in Alaska were never completely completed and that the result may not be a real indication of what might happen if the oral arguments were completely suppressed.  Although more than 90% of convictions were based on oral arguments until 1930, the courts remained reluctant to support them when they appealed.  A counter-argument is that punitive criminal laws are “gross” because the penalty margins are not as precise as the dollar-cent calibration that can be achieved in civil proceedings. Since some defendants, who face a reduced prison sentence, go to jail until trial, they may find it in their best interest to plead guilty to serve or, in any event, to serve less time than they are awaiting trial.  Criminal results are also rendered less predictable by the fact that, in civil proceedings, while an applicant has a financial incentive to obtain as broad a judgment as possible, a prosecutor is not necessarily encouraged to carry out the maximum sentence.  A dispute is under way that could decide whether alleged victims of federal crimes have the right to be informed by a U.S. prosecutor before oral arguments with an accused are concluded.   … The end of the oral arguments brought responsibility to all levels of our system: the police investigated better; Prosecutors and lawyers began to better prepare their cases; Lazy judges were forced to spend more time in court and control their schedules more effectively. Most importantly, justice was served – and criminals began to realize that they could not continue their arrogant manipulation of a paper-tiger justice system.
Theoretical work, based on the prisoner`s dilemma, is one of the reasons why pleadings are prohibited in many countries. The inmate`s dilemma is often the same: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify to the other suspect, regardless of the accused`s innocence. The worst case is that only one party is guilty – here, it is unlikely that the innocent party will make a confession, whereas the culprit will probably make a confession and testify against innocent people. Santobello v. New York added that if oral arguments are broken, corrective action is taken; And it was argued that, in the face of the broadcast of oral arguments, the most important rights of the accused lie in contract law rather than trial law.  Arguments are so common in California superior courts that the California Judicial Council has issued an optional seven-page form (which contains all mandatory advice prescribed by federal and national law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce these good cases in written arguments.  In a video taken by a bystander, Floyd, 46, asked for help and said, “I can`t breathe” when Chauvin`s knee pushed against his neck. Prosecutors say Chauvin kept his knee there for nearly nine minutes.