Earlier quoted context omitted.
>None of those points really have anything to do with plea bargains -- they are just bad things about the CJ system. I think you're making my point for me -- to prevent the "plea bargains are bad" position from painting you into a corner, you attribute the inconsistency to the horribleness of the CJ system itself. That was my point all along! The problems you describe are problems with that selfsame horribleness: A)…
Yes of course I would still argue against plea bargains if A-G were removed. That's exactly what I stated in my previous post, including reasons why, which you've avoided discussing. Of course I think removing plea bargains and changing nothing else would be an improvement (no hassle-free imprisonment and brutal torture perpetuated by the state? sounds great!).
If you're thinking something like "oh yeah, every charge should go to trial, and we should fund it better so there's not a ginormous backlog, and require a big burden of proof before you can detain someone awaiting trial" -- well, that doesn't count, as it's changing the court funding and bail policies too. As it stands now, making every charge go to trial means waiting ten years for a trial. Doesn't sound like an improvement to me.
Do you also accept the implications of the scenario I gave, in a post-A-G world? Where, rather than take the lighter punishment, you prefer that the defendant risk the heavier punishment or put himself at the mercy of the judge?