A 2009 study by the European Association of Justice and Economic Affairs found that innocent defendants, on charges guilty, are more often opposed to other favourable pleas, even if this is theoretically prejudicial because of the injustice felt, and that they would do so even if the expected punishment was worse if it were brought to justice. The study concluded that „[d] its somewhat counter-intuitive „cost of innocence,” where the preferences of innocent people collectively do them worse than their guilty colleagues, by the practice of imposing much harsher sentences on defendants who challenge the charges. This „trial sentence” is intended to facilitate the guilty pleas of the guilty defendants [… and ironically…] disproportionate, collective, punishes innocent people who, for reasons of fairness, refuse certain offers that their guilty colleagues accept.  Judges are not required to impose a sentence in a joint submission and failure to respect a common presentation by a judge is not, in itself, grounds for reducing sentences on appeal. However, if a judge does not routinely respect the common words, that judge would impair the Crown`s ability to meaningfully induce the accused to plead guilty. Defence counsel would be detained if they were considered uns valuable to a particular judge, which would lead to otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will generally impose a sentence as part of a joint filing.  In accordance with Article 217 of the Georgia Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor is required to consult with the victim and inform him before the end of the oral argument. In addition, under the instructions of the Georgian Crown, the prosecutor is required to consider the interests of the victim and, as a general rule, to enter into the plea contract after compensation for the damage. The courts treat oral arguments as contracts between prosecutors and defendants. An accused who breaks a plea is akin to a breach which means that the prosecutor is no longer bound by his involvement in the oral argument.
If a prosecutor waives oral arguments, the accused can ask for discharge from the judge. The judge could have the accused removed from the pleadings of the fault, force the prosecutor to follow the plea, or may resort to another remedy. The decision whether or not to accept a plea can be difficult. Many different factors often need to be taken into account when making decisions. While the good plea case can give you less severe sentences than you would if you are convicted in court, you can still have criminal prosecutions on your minutes, future employment prospects or other life choices. The Federal Code of Criminal Procedure provides for two types of oral arguments. An agreement of 11 (c) (1) (B) does not bind the court; the prosecutor`s recommendation is merely advisory and the accused cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than that provided for by the agreement. However, an agreement of 11 (c) (1) (C) binds the court as soon as the court accepts the agreement. Where such an agreement is proposed, the Tribunal may reject it if it does not agree with the proposed judgment, since the defendant has the opportunity, in this case, to withdraw his means.  The Japanese system, officially known as the „system of consultation and mutual agreement” (協議–制度, kyogi-goi seido), is the subject of arguments in respect of organized crime, violations of competition law and economic crimes such as securities law offences.
The prosecutor, the accused and the defence counsel each sign a written agreement that must be immediately admitted into evidence in a public court.  As in all cases, the judge must respect the rules of the local jurisdiction.