I think that their power should be limited more than they are already, surely. They are far too powerful, and that power is being abused.
However, I have no problem with the idea of some form of leniency for those who, admitting freely their actions and the harm that they have done, spare the State the cost and the victims the further trauma of a trial.
It shouldn’t be on the order of “You hit the guy and he landed wrong and died. If it goes to trial, we’ll charge you with first-degree murder and you’ll be facing life without parole, but we’ll accept a plea to involuntary manslaughter, where you’ll serve two to five years.” However, I have less of a problem with “You hit the guy, and he landed wrong and died. It’s clearly involuntary manslaughter. If it goes to trial, you might be facing 5-7 years, which is the statutory maximum. Plead guilty, and we’ll reduce it to 2-5, which is the statutory minimum.”
So: I don’t think they should be able to accept a plea bargain until after the charges are filed, or for a lesser charge than the charges that have been filed; I don’t think they should be able to change the charges filed to more serious crimes after they have been filed; I don’t think they should be able to accept plea bargains that are outside the regular sentencing scope for the crime being pled to. However, I do think they should be able to reduce the charge to a less serious crime after it has been filed, and then accept a plea to that lesser crime (with the caveat that the defendant can then refuse to plead and insist on a trial for that lesser crime, which cannot be re-upgraded).
IANAL, certainly not a criminal lawyer, so I’m sure that that plan would need substantial modification in order to work the way I’d want it to, but I think it would shift the balance quite a bit towards protecting innocent (or otherwise) defendants from being pressured to unwisely agree to a plea bargain.
