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.  A “special cooperation agreement” is a specific type of procedural agreement in Georgia. These can be concluded before or after a conviction and include situations in which the resolution of another crime depends on the cooperation of the accused/convicted person. The main argument is that it must be based on the defendant`s free will, on equality between the parties and on the extension of the protection of the defendant`s rights: Poland has also adopted a limited form of trial on the merits, which applies only to minor offences (no more than 10 years` imprisonment). The procedure is referred to as a “voluntary submission to a sentence” and allows the court to render an agreed sentence without verifying the evidence, which significantly shortens the trial. Some specific conditions must be met at the same time: Russia`s provisions for a “special trial” in 2001 do not involve a trial of charges or punishment between the prosecution and the accused.
Instead, an accused can accept the charges and seek a conviction without trial. The procedure is only possible for offences of up to 10 years in prison. Judgments in such cases cannot be appealed because they do not involve the Tribunal`s findings and the merits of the case. In addition to this procedure, 2009 “preliminary procedural agreements” can be used in cases of organised crime. Such agreements are submitted to the court as part of the trial and the court may accept the agreement as evidence. If the court has found the accused guilty, it can impose a sentence of no more than half of the maximum possible sentence for the crime. The question of the extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been the subject of an action. Many researches have focused on relatively unproven cases where innocence has subsequently been proven, such as successful appeals to murder and rape on the basis of DNA evidence, which are generally atypical for 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 examine the real reactions of innocent people in general when faced with real advocacy decisions.
A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a true controlled advocacy situation, rather than requiring theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research.  She put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact man of the order (and knew it), and some were innocent, but were apparently confronted with solid evidence of guilt and had no verifiable evidence of innocence. Each subject was presented with evidence of guilt and offered the choice between reviewing an academic ethics committee and perhaps a great deal of punishment with respect to additional courses and other effect, or admitting guilt and accepting a lighter “sentence.” The study showed that, as predicted in the court statistics, about 90% of the accused, who were actually guilty, decided to enter a plea and plead guilty. It also noted that about 56% of those who were truly innocent (and who knew him in private) also make their pleas and plead guilty for reasons such as prevention of formal judicial proceedings, insecurity, the possibility of significant damage to future personal projects or the withdrawal of the domestic environment due to remediation courses.