If the accused believes that the sentence that would be imposed in practice is less than five years` imprisonment (or that it is only a fine), the accused may apply to the public prosecutor for an objection. The defendant is rewarded with a reduction in the penalty and has other benefits (z.B. that the defendant does not pay the taxes of the procedure). The accused must accept the sentence for the counts (although the pleading sentence has some specific points in other compensation proceedings), regardless of the seriousness of the charges. When a plea is tried and accepted, the case is generally final and cannot be challenged. However, a defendant may withdraw his plea for certain legal reasons and a defendant may accept a „conditional“ plea by pleading guilty and accepting a sentence, while reserving the right to appeal a particular case (for example. B, violation of a constitutional right). If the defendant does not win in the appeal proceedings, the agreement is executed; If the defendant succeeds on appeal, the good deal will be terminated. The accused in Doggett, United States, entered into such an agreement and reserved the right to appeal simply because he did not receive a speedy trial in accordance with the United States Constitution; Doggett`s assertion was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and he was released. Poland has also adopted a limited form of advocacy, which applies only to minor offences (no more than 10 years` imprisonment). The procedure is referred to as a „voluntary submission to a sentence“ and allows the court to render an agreed sentence without verifying the evidence, which significantly shortens the trial. There are certain concrete conditions that must be met at the same time: the negotiation of pleadings has been defended as a voluntary exchange, which gives a better place to both parties, since the accused have many procedural and material rights, including a right to a trial and an appeal against a guilty verdict.
By pleading guilty, the accused waive these rights in exchange for a commitment from the prosecutor, such as a reduced charge or a more favourable sentence.  For an accused who believes that a conviction is almost certain, a reduction in sentence is more appropriate than an unlikely chance of being acquitted.  The prosecutor has obtained a conviction and avoids the need to devote time and resources to the preparation of the trial and a possible trial.  Plea`s trials also help to secure money and resources for the court where the charge is being held. It also means that victims and witnesses do not have to testify at trial, which can be traumatic in some cases.  The extent to which innocent people accept a plea and plead guilty is controversial and has been investigated. Many researches have focused on relatively unproven cases where innocence has subsequently been proven, such as successful appeals to murder and rape on the basis of DNA evidence, which are generally atypical for trials as a whole (by nature only the most serious types of crimes). Other studies have focused on presenting hypothetical situations to subjects and the choice they would make. More recently, some studies have attempted to examine the real reactions of innocent people in general when faced with real advocacy decisions.
A study by Dervan and Edkins (2013) attempted to recreate a true controlled advocacy situation, rather than requiring theoretical answers to a theoretical situation – a common approach in previous research.  She put the subjects in a situation where a charge of academic fraud (fraud) could be laid, some of which were in fact man of the order (and knew it), and some were innocent, but were apparently confronted with solid evidence of guilt and had no verifiable evidence of innocence. Each subject was presented with evidence of guilt and offered the choice between the review of an academic ethics committee and perhaps a heavy sanction with respect to additional courses and other effect, or the admission of guilt and