PLEA-BASED VERDICT: PRACTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROBLEMATIC ASPECTS

Abstract

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the institution of plea-based sentencing in the criminal procedure of Ukraine, introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code of 2012. This innovation marked a substantial shift towards European standards of criminal justice, introducing reconciliation and plea agreements as alternatives to traditional trial procedures. The study examines the legal nature, procedural framework, and consequences of both reconciliation agreements and guilty plea agreements. Special attention is given to the principles of voluntariness, legality, fairness, and proportionality as essential conditions for the validity of such agreements. The article highlights how plea mechanisms contribute to procedural efficiency by reducing the workload of courts, expediting the resolution of less complex criminal cases, and promoting offender reintegration through restorative justice approaches. The paper presents practical examples from Ukrainian judicial practice, including cases related to corruption and public interest, and identifies risks associated with superficial judicial review, inadequate sanctions, and insufficient evaluation of the actual implementation of agreement terms. A comparative overview of foreign models reveals international tendencies and provides insights for improving Ukrainian procedural legislation. The author concludes that while plea agreements can serve as an effective tool for streamlining justice and reducing the burden on the judiciary, their effectiveness depends on substantive judicial oversight, proper enforcement of agreed obligations, and strict compliance with the fundamental principles of criminal procedure. These agreements should function not as a way to avoid responsibility, but as a legitimate and balanced mechanism for resolving criminal matters in accordance with legal norms and public interest.