I don't think you read my point in the way I intended for you to, and I'm sorry that my point could be misread in that way. I agree with all of your points. I'

I don't think you read my point in the way I intended for you to, and I'm sorry that my point could be misread in that way. I agree with all of your points. I'm not saying at all that plea bargains shouldn't exist, I'm saying that at the moment there's an incentive to abuse them by indicting the accused on charges that they're very unlikely to be convicted of in court simply because it's known that the case will almost certainly be settled by plea bargain. Indicting them on the greater charges simply strengthen the prosecutor's bargaining position, which I see as wrong. We saw this in the article with the warning shot; if the other grand juror was correct and the warning shot was exactly that, then that charge would probably not stick in court. However, by having that charge, they get to bargain for a far larger sentence, because the potential cost of going to court is far greater. It also gives an incentive to (if someone opts for court) attempt to get them the highest possible sentence (if they are convicted) in order to set an example to future plea-bargainers.