Let's look at an example: We have a defendant who is actually innocent in, let's say, an armed robbery case as you mentioned

Let's look at an example: We have a defendant who is actually innocent in, let's say, an armed robbery case as you mentioned. The evidence is somewhat overwhelming and does not look good for an acquittal, so the defense attorney is pushing his client to accept a plea. What sort of recourse is there for this person? If we have an innocent person, why should he or she have to face a harsher sentence when it comes to trying to plead their case in a trial? This is one of the issues I have with the plea bargain. It does not allow a reasonable option for those who really would like to present their case. It essentially requires a defendant to plead guilty for a crime he or she did not commit.

However, we don't necessarily require a guilty plea when it comes to using a plea bargain. Many of the pleas are that of "nolo contendere" in which the defendant does not either plead guilty or not guilty. As Garrett (2015) pointed out, a plea bargain is not even close to a confession, but yet we treat them like such in order to avoid a prolonged trial or an addition to an already overburdened criminal justice system. My question is, what is the alternative? How often do you feel we have innocent defendants who take pleas just to avoid longer prison sentences if they were to roll the dice and take the case to trial? Any thoughts?