Following a Supreme Court of Canada ruling imposing strict timelines for the resolution of criminal cases (eighteen months for provincial court cases and thirty months for Supreme Court cases), several provinces have taken steps and intensified their efforts to maximize the number of minor criminal cases resolved by plea. Judges are not required to impose a sentence in the context of a joint filing and failure by a judge to comply with a joint filing is not in itself a reason for the judgment to be amended on appeal. However, if a judge did not routinely comply with common complaints, that judge would impair the Crown`s ability to provide reasonable inducements to plead guilty to accused persons. Defense lawyers would be reluctant to make joint registrations if they were deemed invaluable with a particular judge, leading to otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges normally impose a sentence in the area of a joint deposit.  Under the Japanese system, officially known as the “Mutual Consultation and Agreement System” (協議 ・合意制度, kyogi-goi seido), there are criminal prosecutions against organized crime, competition law offenses, and economic crimes such as securities law violations. The prosecutor, the accused and the defence lawyer each sign a written agreement which must be immediately admitted into evidence before a public court.  A Plea Bargain (including Plea Agreement or Plea Deal) is any agreement in criminal proceedings between the prosecutor and the accused, in which the accused agrees to plead guilty or challenge a concession from the prosecutor to a particular charge. This may mean that in exchange for the dismissal of other charges, the accused pleads guilty to a lesser charge or to one of the charges; or it may mean that the accused pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence in the original complaint.  The extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been thoroughly investigated.
Much research has focused on the rare real cases where innocence was later proven, such as successful calls for murder and rape based on DNA evidence that tend to be atypical of trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to investigate the real reactions of innocent people in general when confronted with real decisions of Plea Bargain. A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate an actual controlled Plea Bargain situation rather than asking for theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a usual approach in previous research.  It put subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could have been laid, some of which were actually guilty (and knew) from the outset, and some were innocent, but apparently faced strong evidence of guilt and no verifiable evidence of innocence. Proof of guilt was presented to each subject and the choice was chosen between facing an academic ethics council and possibly a heavy sentence with regard to additional courses and other effects or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter “sentence”. The study showed that, according to court statistics, about 90 percent of the accused subjects, who were actually guilty, chose to make the plea and plead guilty. It was also found that about 56% of subjects who were in fact innocent (and knew this in private) also pleaded and pleaded guilty, among other reasons to avoid formal quasi-legal trials, uncertainty, the possibility of greater harm for personal future projects or removal from the home environment due to renovation courses. .