In some jurisdictions, prosecutors and defendants may cooperate with judges to determine the sentence the accused will receive if the accused agree to oral arguments. However, in most jurisdictions, the role of judges in oral arguments is limited. For example, federal judges retain final authority over criminal decisions and are not bound by prosecutors` recommendations, even though the recommendations are part of the argument. Similarly, federal judges should not be directly involved in oral arguments. In 2009, in a case on whether plea evidence in the United States was admissible in a Danish criminal trial (297/2008 H), the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Hejesteret) unanimously ruled that the arguments were prima fa. under Danish law, but that witnesses can testify independently in the specific case (provided that the trial considers the possibility to be false or, at the very least, influenced by the advantages of the plea).  However, the Supreme Court has indicated that Danish law contains mechanisms similar to oral arguments, such as. B 10 of the Danish Penal Code (Danish: penalfeloven), which stipulates that a sentence can be reduced if the offender provides an offence that contributes to the resolution of another crime committed by others, or . 23 bis of the Danish Competition Act (Danish: konkurrenceloven), which stipulates that someone may ask to avoid a fine or criminal prosecution for participation in an agreement if it provides information on the cartel that the authorities cannot make at this stage.   Arguments were introduced in Estonia in the 1990s: the sentence is reduced in exchange for confessions and avoid most trials. Arguments are permitted for offences punishable by more than four years in prison.
Normally, a 25% discount is granted. [Citation required] In the United States, investigations have shown that defendants who plead guilty are sentenced to lesser sentences than defendants in the same way who exercise their right to a trial. Statistics have shown that after a jury conviction, the average sentence is generally much longer than the accused pleading guilty. It seems that the mere act of charging can reduce the sentence by about two-thirds. These types of diplomas effectively change the scope of the sentence and/or the designation of criminal offences to mitigate or eliminate certain consequences of an indicted offence. The most effective arguments deprive a judge of certain aspects of the discretion of judges in order to limit the maximum possible sentence of an accused. When an accused admits to having committed a criminal offence, the Crown is not obliged to charge him and the case can be considered an “admission case” (danish: tilst-elsessag). 831 of the Administration of Justice Act (Danish: Retsplejeloven), provided that the confession is supported by other evidence (i.e. a confession is not enough to convict someone alone); The accused and the prosecutor agree; The Tribunal has no objection; No. 68, 69, 70 and 73 of the penal code do not apply to the case. [a]  Some aspects of the U.S.
justice system are used to promote oral arguments. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system places judges in a passive role in which they do not have independent access to information that allows them to judge the strength of the accused`s trial. The prosecutor and the defence can thus control the outcome of a case through oral arguments. The court must approve a plea as in the interests of justice.  While oral arguments allow the criminal justice system to conserve resources, oral arguments are controversial.