Some aspects of the U.S. justice system are used to promote oral arguments. For example, the adversarial nature of the U.S. criminal justice system places judges in a passive role in which they do not have independent access to information that allows them to judge the strength of the accused`s trial. The prosecutor and the defence can thus control the outcome of a case through oral arguments. The court must approve a plea as in the interests of justice.  Arguments in court proceedings are admissible only to the extent that prosecutors and defence can agree that the accused will plead guilty to certain counts and the prosecutor will drop the rest. [Citation required] Although this is not a plea, the defence may, in Crown court cases, ask the judge for an indication of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed if the accused pleads guilty.   Arguments are extremely difficult in civil legal systems. Unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no recourse if the defendant confesses; a confession is in evidence, but the prosecutor is not exempt from the requirement to present a full case. A court may decide that an accused is innocent, even if he or she has made a full confession. Unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may not have the power to drop or reduce costs after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce costs before a case is filed is limited, making oral arguments impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for oral arguments.
 The Japanese system, officially known as the “system of consultation and mutual agreements” (協議-制度, kyogi-goi seido), advocates prosecutions of organized crime, competition law offences and economic crimes such as securities law offences. The prosecutor, the accused and the defence counsel each sign a written agreement that must be immediately admitted into evidence in a public court.  Like other common law jurisdictions, the Crown may agree to withdraw certain charges against the accused in exchange for an admission of guilt. It has become a standard procedure for certain offences such as obstruction of driving. In the case of hybrid offences, the Crown must make a binding decision as to whether to proceed summarily or by charge before the accused makes his or her plea. If the Crown chooses to proceed summarily and the accused then pleads not guilty, the Crown cannot change its choice. As a result, the Crown is not in a position to offer summary proceedings in exchange for an admission of guilt. A guilty plea by the accused is not sufficient to render a guilty verdict. (Article 212 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure) Therefore, the court is required to debate two issues: in weak cases (where there is less security for both guilt and jury convictions), it is possible to exercise more rights to pleading than in strong cases.
Prosecutors tend to be highly motivated by conviction rates, and “there are many signs that prosecutors are willing to go a long way to avoid losing cases, and that] if prosecutors decide to prosecute with such weak cases, they are often willing to go a long way to ensure that cases get lost.  Prosecutors often have a great power to obtain a desired level of inducement as they choose the charges to be laid. For this reason In Japan, oral arguments were previously prohibited by law, although sources reported that prosecutors offered unlawful arguments to the accused in exchange for their confessions.     Most of the accused in Outagamie County, Brown and Calumet County do not realize that once they plead guilty to a qualified offence, they cannot withdraw their arguments if the sentence is not taken as intended.