Without plea bargains, every case will have to be tried. That means you will need many more judges, many more courtrooms, many more prosecutors and support staff, and you will have much a greater delay in getting to trial. This means some cases are going to be dismissed by the prosecution because of scarce resources, or lack of available evidence or witnesses. Others will be dismissed by the court for unreasonable delay. Many cases will never be brought because the prosecutor’s office simply cannot handle the burden. Then too, trials, and especially jury trials are always a crap shoot, and the prosecution cannot be assured of winning every case, no matter how good it looks.
I have no problem spending more on courts. They serve one of the few truly essential government functions, and the money we spend on them is a drop in the bucket of federal, state, and local budgets. I think we can do with one less light rail to nowhere in each city to pay for sufficient courts and prosecutors to actually handle the public's business.
I'm undecided on plea bargains. But lack of resources should not be a reason for them. If we have too many criminal prosecutions for our courts to handle, the answer should be more courts or fewer prosecutions, not cutting corners with something as serious as this.
To you and the other very informed opinions that counter the article— an honest question:
Would there be a deterrent factor in criminals seeing their “peers” actually convicted for their actual crimes? (and serving actual sentences?)