Plea bargaining was introduced in India by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2005, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced a new chapter, XXI(A), in the Rules of Procedure, which was enforceable from 5 July 2006.   It allows for oral arguments in cases where the maximum sentence is seven years` imprisonment; However, offences affecting the socio-economic situation of the country and offences committed against a woman or child under the age of 14 are excluded.  Plea bargaining is so common in California`s superior courts (general trial courts) that the California Judicial Council has released an optional seven-page form (with all mandatory guidance required by federal and state law) to help prosecutors and defense attorneys reduce these agreements to written plea agreements.  Here, the defense and prosecutor agreed on the charges that will be pleaded, but did not agree on the decision. In this scenario, the parties often argue about prison versus probation or the length of a prison sentence. Theoretical work based on the prisoner`s dilemma is one of the reasons why pleading negotiations are prohibited in many countries. Often, the scenario of the prisoner`s dilemma is quite true: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other suspect, regardless of the innocence of the accused. The worst case is probably when only one party is guilty: here, the innocent has no incitement to confess, while the guilty has a strong incentive to confess and testify against the innocent (including false testimony). [Citation needed] The Federal Code of Criminal Procedure provides for two main types of action agreements. An agreement under item 11 (c)(1)(B) is not binding on the court; The prosecutor`s recommendation is only advisory and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than that provided for in the agreement.
However, an 11(c)(1)(C) agreement binds the court once the court accepts the agreement. If such an agreement is proposed, the court may reject it if it does not agree with the proposed judgment, in which case the defendant has the option of withdrawing his claim.  In some jurisdictions, prosecutors and defendants may work with judges to determine in advance the sentence that defendants will receive if defendants agree to plea negotiations. In most jurisdictions, however, the role of judges in negotiating pleadings is limited. For example, federal judges retain final authority over sentencing decisions and are not bound by the prosecutor`s recommendations, even if the recommendations are part of plea bargains. Similarly, federal judges may not be directly involved in plea bargains. Some aspects of the U.S. justice system are used to promote plea bargaining. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system places judges in a passive role where they do not have independent access to information that allows them to assess the strength of the case against the defendant. The prosecutor and the defence can thus control the outcome of a case through negotiation. The court must approve a plea bargain as being in the interest of justice.
 A prosecutor may want to maintain a high conviction rate or avoid losing high-profile trials, which gives him or her the opportunity to advocate for his or her interests, but reduces the potential for prosecution and the level of punishment to deter crimes.  Prosecutors may also make prosecution decisions that have a significant impact on a defendant`s sentence, and they may lay charges or propose agreements that cause even an innocent defendant to consider or agree to a plea bargain. In 2009, the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Højesteret) ruled in a case concerning whether testimony resulting from a plea agreement in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal case (297/2008 H) that pleadings are not prima facie non-legal under Danish law, but that witnesses can testify independently in the case in question (provided that: that the lower court consider the possibility that the testimony was false or at least influenced by the benefits of plea bargaining).  However, the Supreme Court noted that Danish law provides for mechanisms similar to Article 82 no. 10 of the Danish Criminal Code (Danish: Straffeloven), according to which a penalty may be reduced if the perpetrator of a criminal offence provides information that contributes to the investigation of an offence committed by others, or section 23a of the Danish Competition Act (Danish: Konkurrenceloven), according to which a person may request not to be fined or prosecuted for participating in a cartel, when it provides information on the cartel to the authorities of the time.   The idea is that even if you want to plead, sometimes the prosecutor does not make us an acceptable offer, but a trial lawyer is able to move the case forward and get an acceptable offer of advocacy. Part of the reason for the reduction in sentences is to encourage defendants to plead guilty. In addition, an accused who pleads guilty is considered to be one who takes responsibility for his actions and shows remorse, and the judicial system believes that he should be punished less severely than someone who refuses to admit guilt and forces the state to assume the time and cost of a trial. .