if someone committed a crime that actually deserves 20 years in prison, why should the government settle for only 2 years?
Part of the theory, as I understand it, is supposed to be the question of the strength of the case. E.g., if the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty but is only 50% sure they can secure a guilty verdict, offer a plea for 10 years.
It's just the opposite of why a defendant would take a plea bargain. He has 20 years levied against him, but he is only 20% confident he can win in court, so 10 years might look attractive.
Trouble is, if the prosecution has the discretion to increase the charges and make the sentence run longer, they can manipulate the payoff and thereby force the "bargain" to be the allegedly just sentence, with the threat of an unjust sentence to force the defendant's hand.
Part of the theory, as I understand it, is supposed to be the question of the strength of the case. E.g., if the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty but is only 50% sure they can secure a guilty verdict, offer a plea for 10 years.
It's just the opposite of why a defendant would take a plea bargain. He has 20 years levied against him, but he is only 20% confident he can win in court, so 10 years might look attractive.