A PROCEDURAL AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF A PLEA BARGAIN IN THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES AND KAZAKHSTAN

Abstract

The development of the country's economy affects the activities of public authorities and the behavior of subjects administering justice. This is happening in the direction of simplifying the procedural mechanism, while maintaining the dynamics of increasing the efficiency of legal proceedings. The scientific work is devoted to the study of the institution of a plea bargain, its positive and negative features based on the legislative experience of the United States. Different States apply different approaches to the regulation and implementation of reconciliation agreements. There is a different approach to the categories of criminal offenses, restrictions, the initiative to conclude, as well as the fulfillment of the conditions defined by the transaction. The choice of legislative experience and judicial and investigative practice in the United States is due to the fact that the institution of a plea bargain was created and developed here. The main provisions regarding the content and procedure for concluding a plea bargain have developed over three centuries and have led to the fact that most criminal cases are considered using this transaction. By identifying the positive and negative characteristics of this institution, we can highlight the essential features of the procedure for concluding a procedural agreement in the form of a plea bargain in Kazakh legislation in order to note recommendations for improving the effectiveness of its implementation and preventing negative consequences occurring in US practice. In addition, the paper examines the negative aspects of the implementation of the institution in question in terms of the procedural actions of the court when the suspect or accused person refuses to enter into a plea bargain before the court has decided on the case, the existence of obligations only on the part of the defense and the possibility of preventing unfair actions of the prosecutor for not conducting a pre-trial investigation. It is necessary to fill the gap regarding the responsibility of each party for non-fulfillment of the terms of the transaction.