There are a number of reasonable explanations for why those found guilty with public defenders face more severe consequences, even outside the ability to obtain

There are a number of reasonable explanations for why those found guilty with public defenders face more severe consequences, even outside the ability to obtain more effective representation. In particular, that is not balancing for the crimes of the accused. Certain crimes are committed disproportionately more often by certain demographics. Burglary, for instance, has the highest recidivism rate there is and is also going to be something engaged in almost exclusively by the sort of individuals that would not have the means to hire private representation. Recidivism is also heavily dependent upon demographics, and once again individuals without means tend to return to crime more often than individuals with means. While each judge has their own 'style' of sentencing, in general an individual they believe less likely to return to crime is more likely to be sentenced to probation, than an individual who they see as more likely to return to crime. Another reason prosecutors are incentivized to make (and accept) plea deals is because if every accused in the US demanded a trial by jury, our entire justice system would collapse in on itself which would necessitate immediate reform. We don't have anywhere near the resources to actually handle all the people we arrest and charge if they actually attempted to defend themselves. Kind of interesting in that in a way it's like a nationwide prisoner's dilemma.