Answer to Question 1
The court is not bound to accept a plea agreement. In deciding whether to accept the bargain, the Court weighs the sometimes competing interests of the agreement and the public interest. Thus, if accepting a plea agreement poses a significant risk to the public say, because a dangerous criminal will be spared prison and placed on probation then the Court has the discretion to deny it.
The consequences of plea bargaining are of far greater magnitude for the prosecutor than for the court. Assuming the court accepts a plea bargain, whether it is a charge or sentence reduction,
then the prosecutor must fulfill his or her part of the agreement. Note, however, that the prosecutor is not strictly obligated to fulfill his or her promises early in the plea-bargaining process. More specifically, the prosecutor is not bound by the plea bargain prior to the point at which it is accepted by the court.
The defendant who accepts an offer to plead guilty often faces consequences besides a reduced sentence or charge. Important rights are often waived, such as the right to appeal, the right to a jury trial, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Also, if the defendant supplies inaccurate information during the course of plea negotiations, he or she may not benefit from lenient treatment. Furthermore, in exchange for pleading guilty, the prosecution may require that the defendant testify against a codefendant.
Although plea bargaining mainly occurs between the prosecution and defense, it is important not to leave out the victim. Victims are affected by plea bargaining in at least two respects. First, a plea agreement may give the victim a measure of closure relatively quick. On the other hand, a plea agreement may be viewed by the victim as lenient. That is, he or she may feel the offender
was not adequately punished for the offense in question. To address this problem, several states have laws that require victim involvement or input during the bargaining process
Answer to Question 2
A