In Estonia, arguments were launched in the 1990s: the sentence is reduced in exchange for confessions and avoiding most trials. Arguments are permitted for offences punishable by more than four years in prison. Normally, a 25% discount is granted. [Citation required] Courts have generally upheld good cases in which a defendant agrees to testify against another accused or provide evidence incriminating another suspect. Some defendants attempted to challenge these rules when other defendants testified against them. For example, in the United States v. Singleton, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th cir in 1999), prosecutors reached an agreement with Napoleon Douglas, a drug dealer, with prosecutors agreeing to reduce the charges against him if he agreed to testify against Sonya E. Singleton. A court has convicted Singleton of conspiracy to distribute drugs and MONEY LAUNDERING. Singleton`s counsel, during the trial and later on appeal, argued that the agreement between the prosecutors and Douglas constituted corruption with violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 201 (c) (2) (2) (2). Although a panel of the U.S. Court of Agreement for the Attempt Circuit initially accepted singleton, the bench ruled on the panel and upheld the conviction.
According to the court, the federal corruption law does not apply to the federal government with respect to good cases. Sometimes the prosecutor agrees to reduce the charges or drop some of the multiple charges in exchange for the accused`s acceptance of the sentence. The accused, in the application, could argue with the penalty and aggravating and mitigating Circumstancing with the prosecutor who can accept or refuse. The request could also be made by the prosecutor. Arguments could be granted if the sentence, which could be applied in practice, is less than a five-year prison sentence after the reduction of one-third (so-called patteggiamento allargato, extensive negotiation); If the sentence imposed, after the reduction of one third, is less than two years` imprisonment or only a fine (so-called “patteggiamento ristretto” limited negotiation), the accused may have other benefits, such as the suspended sentence and the erasure of the crime, if within five years of sentence the accused does not commit a similar crime. In some common law jurisdictions, such as Singapore and the State of Victoria in Australia, arguments are made only to the extent that the prosecutor and the defence can accept that the accused pleads guilty in exchange for the prosecutor withdrawing the remaining or more serious charges. In New South Wales, a 10-25% discount is generally granted on the verdict in exchange for an early admission of guilt, but this concession should be granted by the judge as a means of recognizing the utilitarian value of an early guilty verdict to the courts – it is never negotiated with a prosecutor.  The courts in these jurisdictions have made it clear that they will always decide what the appropriate sanction will be. There are no negotiations between the Crown and the defence on criminal sanctions. [P]lea-good deals are just as likely in strong and weak cases.
Prosecutors only have to tailor the offer to the likelihood of a conviction in order to reach an agreement.