The determination of penalty in the abbreviated procedure

Abstract

The problem of justification of punishment, understood as the power of the political community to exercise scheduled violence against its members, is one of the greatest and most classic proble­ms of Criminal Law and the Philosophy of Law. Most of the judicial decisions regarding the determination of the sentence clearly show that the graduation and election of the sentence in each case is more than arbitrary to the arbitrariness of the judge.The merit and useful­ness of the institute, which can be classified as paradigmatic in the field of procedures based on consensus, plea bargaining or in our legislation called the abbreviated procedure, which is an agreement between the prosecutor, Imputed and its Defensor and that avoids the oral trial, considering that in that agreement must be determined the penalty by the parties that soon will be controlled by the Judge. The plea bargaining leads to a quick and definitive solution of most criminal proceedings. Many criminal cases are resolved out of court by having both sides come to an agreement. This process is known as negotiating a plea or plea bargaining. In most jurisdictions it resolves most of the criminal cases filed. Either side may begin negotiations over a proposed plea bargain, though obviously both sides have to agree before one comes to pass. Plea bargaining usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser charge, or to only one of several charges. It also may involve a guilty plea as charged, with the prosecution recommending leniency in sentencing. The judge, however, is not bound to follow the prosecution’s recommendation. The agreement between parts of their type, the court must rest on what has been done by the parts in a model of procedural equality, which must necessarily be based on the premise that both the public criminal actor and the have done their job well.