In particular for Canadian justice, it is possible to continue negotiations on the final decision of a criminal proceeding, even after the sentencing. Indeed, in Canada, the Crown (by common law standards) has a very broad right to challenge acquittals and also the right to challenge harsher sentences, except in cases where the sentence imposed was allowed to the maximum. Therefore, after the conviction, the Canadian defence is sometimes prompted to convince the Crown not to appeal, since the defence also does not appeal. Strictly speaking, these are not pleas, but they are largely the same reasons. In Japan, oral arguments were previously prohibited by law, although sources reported that prosecutors were illegally offering oral arguments to the accused in exchange for their confessions.     In 2013, Brazil passed a law authorizing oral arguments that have since been used in political corruption processes.  In 2009, in a case in which it was questioned whether evidence of a plea in the United States was permitted in a Danish criminal trial (297/2008 H), the Supreme Court of Denmark (Danish: Hejesteret) unanimously ruled that the oral arguments were excellent. 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.   In oral arguments, prosecutors generally agree to reduce an accused`s sentence. They often do this by reducing the number of charges of the seriousness of the charge of those charged. They may also agree to recommend that the accused receive reduced sentences. Some arguments ask the accused to do more than plead guilty. For example, prosecutors often offer favourable arguments for accused who agree to testify for the state against other defendants. The main principle of the argument is that it must be based on the defendant`s free will, equality between the parties and the expanded protection of the defendant`s rights: the pleadings were brought in India by the 2005 Penal Code (Amendment), which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and introduced a new chapter, XXI (A), in the code of law applicable to 5 July 2006.   It authorizes oral arguments in cases where the maximum sentence is seven years` imprisonment; However, offences affecting the socio-economic situation of the country as well as offences against a woman or child under the age of 14 are excluded.  As a general rule, once a plea is tried and accepted, the case is final and cannot be challenged.