[FlyWf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, although your premise is unrealistic. As prosecutors got even busier than they already are, they'd offer better-quality deals to defendants, giving defendants more incentive to accept pleas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking more about the individual level than the systemic level here. You seemed to be saying before that prosecutors tend to enter into plea agreements in the cases that they are most unlikely to win at trial. Even if the plea deal encompasses very little jail time (or even none), the lifelong stigma of having a criminal conviction on one's record should push toward more defendants "gambling" on a trial. Obviously this doesn't apply to people that already have criminal records (maybe these people constitute a huge portion of criminal defendants?), but it just seems that from a game theory/economic perspective, something is WAY off in the criminal justice system. Somehow, the game is rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're ignoring that prosecutors do not randomly indict people off the street. While they could indict ham sandwiches they generally spend their time indicting people who they believe committed crimes. The unusually high conviction percentage can be explained by selective indictment.

You've failed to identify a problem. The cases that prosecutors are truly most unlikely to win at trials are cases where the defendant is clearly innocent. Those people aren't offered plea bargains, they get charges dropped.