Whether or not the accused opts for a plea agreement, oral arguments are ongoing in most trials. This is because there are advantages for both the prosecutor and the accused in resolving a criminal proceeding through a plea agreement. Thus, a plea for both parties provides security. Read on to learn more about the various areas of negotiation in the context of advocacy and related logistics. Although they were typical before 1860, it was only during the Civil War that oral arguments were heard in appels courts. These courts reacted with the same surprise that the judges had to say in court when they first faced oral arguments, and they sometimes overturned case-based convictions. The plea contract is between the parties – the prosecutor and the accused. Although the victim is not involved in the criminal case and the prosecutor is not a tool in the hands of the victim to take revenge on the offender, the victim`s attitude towards the pleading contract remains important. Italy has a form of negotiation, commonly known as patteggiamento, but this has a technical name of punitive application at the request of the parts. Negotiations do not deal with the charges, but with the sentence reduced to a third party. Under Italian law, a good deal does not need an admission of guilt (there are no pleas in Italy); for this reason, a negotiating penalty is merely an acceptance of the sentence in exchange for the closing of the investigation and the procedure and has no binding cogenity in other trials, particularly in civil trials where parties of the same facts are dealt with on the effects of civil liability and in other criminal proceedings where the accused`s accomplices who have sought and received a trial sentence are treated.
 Theoretical work based on the prisoner`s dilemma is one of the reasons why pleadings are prohibited in many countries. The inmate`s dilemma is often the same: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify to the other suspect, regardless of the accused`s innocence. The worst case is probably when only one party is guilty: here, the innocent has no incentive to confess, while the guilty is strongly encouraged to confess and testify against innocent people (including false statements). [Citation required] 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. Consent without the Tribunal`s consent has no legal effect. The Tribunal must ensure that the fundamental agreement is reached on the basis of the defendant`s free will, that the defendant fully recognizes the nature of the fundamental agreement and its consequences.