REVISITING THE USE OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIALS

Abstract

This article seeks to examine the Concept of plea bargaining and its use in international criminal trials before international criminal courts and tribunals. The question sought to be answered by the author is whether the use of plea bargaining in international criminal trials is not at variance with the primary goal, mission and mandate of International criminal courts and tribunals. The primary goal, mission and mandate of international criminal courts and tribunal is to try and punish those responsible for perpetrating mass atrocity crimes without exception. The article found that the ICTY handed down several lenient sentences based on plea bargain agreements. It also found that the ICTR did same though in the case of the ICTR, the plea agreements did not lead to lenient sentences. The paper further found that the ICC has equally convicted one person based on plea bargaining. The article argues that the crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of these tribunals and court are serious crimes and heinous in nature and the use of plea bargaining in the trials of perpetrators violates the duty of the courts and tribunals to try and punish perpetrators and issue proportionate sentences for the crimes. The researcher adopted the doctrinal method. The article is divided into seven sections. Section 1 is the introduction. Section two provides explanation for the concept of plea bargaining. Section three deals with typologies of plea bargaining. Section four is on crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of these tribunals and courts. Section five focuses on the introduction and use of plea bargaining in International criminal trials. Section six highlights the effect of the use of plea bargaining in international criminal trials. The paper concludes in section seven by recommending the abolition of the use of plea bargaining in international criminal trials.