This might be too extreme, but what about forcing the prosecution to put some skin in the game where it comes to predicting the eventual outcome of the case? I

This might be too extreme, but what about forcing the prosecution to put some skin in the game where it comes to predicting the eventual outcome of the case? In civil matters parties have the option of making a "Calderbank Offer", in which they put forth a reasonable resolution for the dispute by mutual agreement. If the other side does not accept that offer, but does not get a better outcome than the offer made, they are punished with costs consequences (for tying up court resources, forcing the other party through expensive litigation etc). In a criminal trial, perhaps the prosecution should be required to go on record stating the sentence they will be asking the court for. In the event that the actual sentence varies significantly from the sentence threatened by the prosecution, a discounting procedure could be applied (for every 10% the prosecutor overstates the likely sentence, the accused receives a 5% reduction in their sentence). ie. if a prosecutor proposes a 4 month custodial sentence for accessing academic journal articles, and a judge imposes 2 months, the accused would be entitled to a 50% discount, and serve only 1 month. If the prosecutor proposes 35 years, the accused serves no time.