More and more trials involving accusations of “smuggling” now end with so-called “plea deals.” The defendants sign a confession of guilt, and in return, the prosecution reduces the sentence. This supposed compromise comes with a rarely discussed catch: anyone who signs the deal gives up any chance of acquittal, appeal or asylum, let alone citizenship. These life-altering deals are often made spontaneously in court and without qualified interpreters. In most cases, the defendants have no real understanding of what they are signing or what the consequences will be — a massive violation of their rights.
The context of the unlawful criminalization of migration
Since the EU declared the fight against so-called “smuggling” a priority in 2015, in Greece almost every arrival of a boat or vehicle carrying migrants has led to at least one passenger being arrested and charged as a “smuggler.” While these measures are officially presented as protecting migrants, they target precisely those they claim to defend. Arrests are often based on overly broad laws, and frequently occur without evidence, legal counsel, or translation. Nearly all accused spend months in pre-trial detention — a measure usually reserved for cases considered highly dangerous. Yet the violations of rights continue into the trials themselves, as the practice of plea deals clearly shows.
A Quick Way Out — But for Whom?
A plea deal means that the defendant admits guilt exactly as stated in the investigation file. In return, the prosecution agrees to request a reduced sentence. Negotiations take place behind closed doors, and the agreement is then formally approved by the court in a public hearing. For lawyers, it’s the fastest route — as one Greek attorney puts it: “It’s simple, clean, no hassle — everything is done after the first hearing.” Plea deals were originally introduced into the Greek legal system to relieve overburdened courts of less significant cases.
For defendants, the deal can at first seem appealing: without it, they often face prison sentences of hundreds of years, of which they must serve at least twenty-five. Especially when the court deems there to be “danger to life and limb,” judges are rarely inclined toward leniency. After spending months or even years in pre-trial detention, some defendants view a plea deal as a strategic way to reduce their sentence — despite the consequences.
Shame Defense: When Confessions Are Made Under Pressure
But what happens when defendants have no real understanding of their options? Again and again, we have documented cases in which state-appointed defense attorneys pressured defendants to sign plea deals — without explaining the consequences, often without qualified translation, and without any time to reflect. We repeatedly see people contact us after unknowingly signing a confession, only to find themselves unable to contest it later.
The reasons lie in the broader context: many court-appointed lawyers meet their clients for the first time only shortly before the hearing — sometimes only inside the courtroom itself. In such situations, they have little knowledge of the case files or the defendant’s individual circumstances. Furthermore, untrained and often imprisoned individuals are used as interpreters. This undermines several fundamental principles of fair trial and effective defense. Confessions made under such conditions — or under significant pressure — should never be treated as equivalent to freely given admissions of guilt.
Consequences for Acquittal, Appeal, and Beyond
In recent months, there have been several acquittals in “smuggling” cases where courts cited international law: asylum seekers must not be criminalized for their migration. These rulings make clear that in certain situations — for example, for people from countries with high asylum recognition rates — immediate release is not only theoretically possible but realistic.
However, anyone who agrees to a plea deal automatically forfeits that chance. The confession made as part of the deal is irreversible: there is no examination of evidence, no witnesses, no substantive review. Nor is there the possibility of appeal as there would be with a normal verdict. Instead, the label “guilty” remains — shaping all future proceedings. Those who sign a deal lose almost all chances of asylum, citizenship, or access to certain professions.
Regional Disparities of Plea Deal Practices
How readily prosecutors offer plea deals depends heavily on the region. According to our observations, the practice is established at the following courts:
- Chania (Crete): Almost every case is now settled through a deal. Prosecutors often suggest it themselves.
- Komotini (Northern Greece): A hotspot for plea bargains. Of the 25 deals we documented between 2020 and 2023, 24 took place in this city alone.
The frequency on Crete is particularly striking. Observers report: “We’re currently seeing an incredible number of these deals — almost every case ends with one.” Rejections are rare and occur mainly when the situation of passengers on migration boats was especially dire. In one case, a court rejected a deal after witnesses described a lack of food and water — the trial ended with a harsh sentence.
How Plea Deals Reinforce the “Smuggler” Narrative
For many defense lawyers, plea deals may seem like a pragmatic choice: quicker trials, predictable sentences, less risk. Yet politically, the practice has a dangerous dimension. Each deal reinforces the state narrative of the “smuggler” responsible for migration, bolstering statistics of supposedly legitimate arrests. Every confession strengthens a story that should instead be questioned. Without safe and legal routes, people will continue to take boats, steer them, or help others to reach safety — and criminalizing them only deepens the injustice.