Peirspictiochtai Ar An Saol
Zero-Based Justice
Part Nine
Those that are directly involved in the justice system as it operates today in the United States of America – judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement officials – are generally in favor of plea bargains.
This conclusion is reached since various reports indicate that plea bargains are utilized to secure convictions in more than 90% of criminal cases.
If those directly involved in the justice system were generally against plea bargains, those individuals would likely be among the first to demand changes to the justice system as it operates today.
But for each of those directly involved in the justice system as it stands today, plea bargains are efficient – for them.
Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are all able to process convictions of people more quickly and in greater quantities through plea bargains than ever would be possible through jury trials.
As for law enforcement officials, the use of plea bargains means they don't need to spend time testifying in court cases – or waiting to be called to testify for court cases – and, thus, can spend more time arresting individuals to enter the justice system.
Law enforcement officials are directly involved in the plea bargain system as it operates today because, in many cases, law enforcement officials are the ones who decide to arrest individuals on multiple charges for the same event.
Multiple charges for the same event allow prosecutors to "negotiate" with defense attorneys and defendants.
Consider an example of a criminal case where an individual has been charged with three crimes for the same event: charge #1, charge #2, and charge #3. Charge #1 regards the crime with the least amount of potential penalties (potential jail time, potential probation, potential community service, potential fines, and other potential elements), while charge #2 has the highest amount of potential penalties. The potential penalties for charge #3 are closer to charge #1 as compared to charge #2.
The defendant, in this criminal case, has hired an attorney to represent themselves.
The prosecutor, in this criminal case, represents "the people" – society overall.
The negotiations between the prosecutor and the defense attorney may go something like the following:
Prosecutor: "If your client (the defendant) agrees to plead 'guilty' to charge #3, we'll drop charges #1 and #2. If you don't, we'll proceed to trial on all three charges."
Defense Attorney: "How about if we plead 'guilty' to charge #1 and you drop charges #2 and #3."
Prosecutor: "We can agree to that so long as your client (the defendant) agrees to a suspended sentence of __ month(s)/year(s) in jail, ___ month(s)/year(s) of probation, __ hours of community service, and a fine of $___ (with associated surcharges extra)."
Defense Attorney: "We can agree to those terms so long as the defendant's record is expunged after completing each of those conditions."
Prosecutor: "That's acceptable to us."
Defense Attorney: "We agree."
Afterwards, during a court hearing, a judge reviews the plea bargain and asks the defendant how do they plead. If they plead "guilty," the judge will ask if they are pleading "guilty" because they, in fact, engaged in that specific criminal act and if they are entering their plea voluntarily and without being forced to do so.
If the defendant states that they are pleading "guilty" because they are, in fact, guilty and are doing so freely with no coercion, the judge typically accepts the plea bargain.
Notice that there is no real discussion about whether the two charges ultimately dropped (charges #2 and #3) should be prosecuted.
No discussion of what is "real" justice in this case.
No discussion of what would protect society in the future.
No discussion of what would incentivize the defendant to not engage in the criminal conduct initially charged.
No discussion of whether the criminal acts even took place.
The system, as it operates today in most cases, is designed to have the prosecutor get a "win" – the defendant pleads "guilty" to a crime; to have the law enforcement official get a "win" – the prosecutor confirms that the arrest was valid by getting a "guilty" plea from the person arrested by the law enforcement official; to have the defense attorney get a "win" – the defense attorney has had two of the three charges dismissed against the defendant; and the judge to get a "win" – the judge is able to preside over a court system that has provided a neutral setting to dispense justice in a manner that protects the interests of both parties in an efficient manner.
As for the defendant, he or she may actually be guilty of all three charges, may actually be innocent of all three charges, or may be guilty of one or more charges and may be innocent of one or more charges.
The defendant may have pled "guilty" because they are guilty or may have done so to avoid a potentially worse outcome through a criminal trial.
As to the question of whether "the people" – society overall – are in a better position because of the plea bargain, that is an open question. In this example of a criminal case, since there wasn't a specific victim of the criminal acts, there is no one person to ask if they believe that this outcome was justice.
The next news column in this series will continue to detail aspects of how plea bargains are utilized in the justice system. Additional news columns will continue to detail specific characteristics of justice as it is practiced today in many parts of the United States as well as ways that justice could be practiced through Zero-Based Justice.
Peirspictiochtai Ar A Saol – Gaelic – Irish – for "Perspectives On Life" is a column focused on aspects of accountability and responsibility as well as ways people look at life.
Contact Richard McDonough at
© 2026 Richard McDonough
