When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia

The amendment of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code in 2010 formalised the plea-bargaining process and introduced two new sections, 172C and 172D. The new procedures are intended to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal courts and as a swift alternative to a full criminal trial. However, th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Asian Journal of Criminology
Main Author: Hamin Z.; Othman M.B.; Rani A.R.A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Springer Netherlands 2019
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85068858558&doi=10.1007%2fs11417-019-09288-x&partnerID=40&md5=2a7e6b37910e2c1745bd50042f928228
id 2-s2.0-85068858558
spelling 2-s2.0-85068858558
Hamin Z.; Othman M.B.; Rani A.R.A.
When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
2019
Asian Journal of Criminology
14
3
10.1007/s11417-019-09288-x
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85068858558&doi=10.1007%2fs11417-019-09288-x&partnerID=40&md5=2a7e6b37910e2c1745bd50042f928228
The amendment of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code in 2010 formalised the plea-bargaining process and introduced two new sections, 172C and 172D. The new procedures are intended to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal courts and as a swift alternative to a full criminal trial. However, the law in action does not appear to be in line with the law in the statute book because currently the actors involved in the process are avoiding the use of the new procedural law. Instead, those actors are following the old informal practice of plea-bargaining to achieve their personal goals which may be inconsistent with the organisational goals of the judiciary and prosecution. This paper adopts a qualitative methodology, in which the primary data is obtained from semi-structured interviews with twenty respondents comprising the stakeholders in the criminal justice system. © 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
Springer Netherlands
18710131
English
Article

author Hamin Z.; Othman M.B.; Rani A.R.A.
spellingShingle Hamin Z.; Othman M.B.; Rani A.R.A.
When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
author_facet Hamin Z.; Othman M.B.; Rani A.R.A.
author_sort Hamin Z.; Othman M.B.; Rani A.R.A.
title When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
title_short When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
title_full When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
title_fullStr When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
title_full_unstemmed When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
title_sort When Law and Practice Collide: the Implementation of the Plea-Bargaining Process in Malaysia
publishDate 2019
container_title Asian Journal of Criminology
container_volume 14
container_issue 3
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11417-019-09288-x
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85068858558&doi=10.1007%2fs11417-019-09288-x&partnerID=40&md5=2a7e6b37910e2c1745bd50042f928228
description The amendment of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code in 2010 formalised the plea-bargaining process and introduced two new sections, 172C and 172D. The new procedures are intended to reduce the backlog of cases in the criminal courts and as a swift alternative to a full criminal trial. However, the law in action does not appear to be in line with the law in the statute book because currently the actors involved in the process are avoiding the use of the new procedural law. Instead, those actors are following the old informal practice of plea-bargaining to achieve their personal goals which may be inconsistent with the organisational goals of the judiciary and prosecution. This paper adopts a qualitative methodology, in which the primary data is obtained from semi-structured interviews with twenty respondents comprising the stakeholders in the criminal justice system. © 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
publisher Springer Netherlands
issn 18710131
language English
format Article
accesstype
record_format scopus
collection Scopus
_version_ 1820775466964877312