Almost a decade since the first case of plea bargaining received publicity in Nigeria, there is still uncertainty about the nature and impact of this system on criminal justice administration. There is also a lack of clear understanding of how the process is conducted and fulfilled, as most of the activities are done behind the closed doors of the prosecutor’s office. What is even more significant is the degree of apprehension about the legality of the system, and the allegation that the process neither serves the purpose which it claims to address nor promotes the justice system’s main objectives of retribution and deterrence. These controversies have resulted in enormous criticism and arguments on whether the concept of plea bargaining is a suitable and sincere reform or whether it is a transplant that encourages compromise the kind of compromise that breeds corruption in the legal system.

This study explores the development of plea bargaining in Nigeria as well as the polemics that surrounds its application. It begins by tracing some of the significant institutional changes that have continued to reshape criminal justice policies and practices all over the world, and how these multifactorial elements in social, political and legal parlance have influenced the transition from adversarial and inquisitorial systems to one that promotes consensual justice in form of negotiating with a criminal offender. An understanding of these trajectories has helped to reveal the inherent conflict of ideas as to whether or not to preserve the orthodox values of criminal justice from the compelling incentives that plea bargaining presents or to tolerate a system that offers various alternatives that are pragmatic in nature. Although this debate is filled with strong utilitarian arguments for plea bargaining, it also presents an overwhelming opposition from right based scholarship.

While this research does not reject plea bargaining in its entirety, it was able to demonstrate the importance of maintaining a system of criminal justice that is consistent in promoting the rule of law, as it reveals the dangers of drifting towards practices that potentially threaten the legitimate interest of the various parties in criminal justice. To explore the different arguments on this subject matter, this study draws upon critical analysis of the global transition from a trial based criminal justice to the contingencies that prompted the rise and expansion of plea bargaining in different parts of the world. The study then evluates the complexity of this transition as it applies to Nigeria.

The empirical aspect of this thesis takes a deep and critical assessment of these aspects through the eyes of legal practitioners and legal scholars in Nigeria. This leads to an analysis of the long standing polemics on legality, suitability, and the advantages and disadvantages of plea bargaining in Nigeria, through which some of the distinctive characteristics of the Nigerian plea bargaining system was examined in ways not previously done. It also assesses the impact of this acclaimed legal reform as it continues to generate widespread accusations of partiality and inconsistency. In contrast to previous works, this study was also able to explain the practical application of plea bargaining in Nigeria along the line of the different technicalities used to fulfill different priorities. It also observes and explains how these processes conflict with other existing criminal laws and the extent to which it has resulted in the hybridization of the criminal justice system. These findings are in fact the first in-depth empirical analysis of the different procedural imports, legal challenges, divisiveness and the constitutional problems surrounding the application of plea bargaining in Nigeria.

Globalisation of plea bargaining and its emergence in Nigeria: a critical analysis of practice, problems, and priorities in criminal justice reform

The recreational use and mere possession of marijuana is considered a criminal offense under current Canadian legislation. This thesis argues that the criminalization of recreational marijuana use in Canada is not justified because the "criminal" punishment exceeds the seriousness of the crime. Furthermore, excessive criminalization results in an unwarranted infringement of the autonomy and moral right of citizens to recreational marijuana use. Chapter 1 identifies the contemporary science and medical research surrounding cannabis, especially the psychological and physiological risks of marijuana use and the medicinal benefits of marijuana use. Chapter 2 presents a socio-cultural perspective on marijuana use. We look at how Canadians' views have changed toward marijuana, as well as the social ramifications of two major Governmental reports: The Le Dain Commission Final Report of 1974 and the Senate Special Committee Report on Cannabis of 2002. The socio-cultural context of marijuana in Canadian society is illustrated and compared with other licit and illicit drugs and the stigma associated with a criminal marijuana conviction is illuminated. We move from the social to legal arena in Chapter 3 and outline Canadian laws regulating marijuana offenses from past to present. We show how politics has affected marijuana policy in Canada and how increased penalties to marijuana offenders are irrational and out of step with socio-cultural attitudes toward cannabis use. Chapter 4 marks the beginning of our philosophical, nonconsequentialist moral rights argument. The philosophical framework of Douglas Husak is appropriated in order to introduce ethical arguments that challenge the criminalization of marijuana based on the harm it poses to the individual user and to others in society. The principle of autonomy is analyzed as a basis for challenging state interference on paternalistic grounds in the state's efforts to prevent harm to users. The "harm principle"

https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/28614/1/MR69030.PDF

The Criminalization of Recreational Marijuana Use in Canada: A Scientific, Social, Legal and Philosophical Analysis Based On the Work of Douglas Husak

Prosecutor’s Powers to Discontinue Investigation

This casebook provides the most comprehensive treatment available, including the theoretical foundations, the common-law origins, the statutory structure, and the procedural context of modern criminal law. The book concentrates on doctrinal materials that can support both rigorous technical, and sophisticated theoretical, discussions. The purposes and limits of punishment are addressed through Supreme Court decisions, a focus on statutes throughout the substantive law sections enables training students in the legal art of statutory interpretation as well as exposing them to the hard moral and political problems of legislative choice, and the sentencing materials reprise the theory of punishment in the context of the practically most important stage of the modern process. The 12th edition carries forward the comprehensive approach of prior editions, empowering the teacher to design a course suited to the needs of the teacher's students and institution. New Supreme Court's decisions, changing the landscape of both substance and procedure, include Skilling v. United States, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Graham v. Florida, United States v. Jones, and Michigan v. Bryant. The material on self-defense has been comprehensively revised, both for the sake of clarity and to include discussion of so-called "stand your ground laws." Statutes (e.g., the New York and California homicide statutes) and the caselaw (e.g., up-to-the-minute material on "willful blindness") have been updated. We also now include a case about the admissibility of neuro-imaging evidence to support a diminished-capacity defense, thus acknowledging how modern brain science has begun to raise both practical evidentiary issues and a substantial challenge to important theoretical premises of the criminal law.

Ronald N. Boyce

Papers

Criminal Law and Procedure: Cases and Materials