Plea bargains in the American court.

[js207]

If a judge gives a light sentence because a felon has admitted guilt or he is swayed by the prosecution, then surely he is breaking the law himself by doing so.
...
The UK stopped giving lenient sentences for guilty pleas because of the victims saying, they do the crime so they should do the time.

On the contrary - he would be breaking the law (in England and Wales, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 144, "Reduction in sentences for guilty pleas", derived from a 1994 act which in turn codified existing common law on sentencing) if he failed to do so. I certainly agree sentencing tends to be much too lenient these days, but Parliament doesn't seem willing to address this just yet. I'm not convinced that removing the reduction in sentence for an early guilty plea would be a good idea, either: remove that, every defendant on legal aid has nothing to lose by taking the chance and dragging proceedings out as long as they like.

Personally, I'd require that any conviction result in the maximum sentence except in extenuating circumstances, then allow the judge to make some or even all of that a suspended sentence. A first offender would still get out quite soon, or even escape jail entirely - but re-offend, they automatically get time behind bars for that on top of whatever the second offence merits. Parts of the US have "three strikes" laws which mandate a life sentence for the third felony conviction (sometimes misrepresented in cases like the "pizza theft", where a violent career criminal got a 25-life sentence for robbing some children at a pizza restaurant as the last in a long string of crimes - and upon his release after the sentence was reduced, has made a serious and so far successful effort to stay inside the law this time), which has some appeal to me, but the suspended sentence route is simpler and avoids complaints of disproportional sentences.

If the prosecution leaves out evidence or do not carry out their task of prosecuting the man fully. Then surely they too are guilty of fraudulent behaviour and bending the law to suit them-selves. If the lawyers for the prosecution do this once then surely they can never really be trusted to carry out their work with fairness and conviction. There laws and sentence’s are there as a bench mark, and if the judge or the prosecution lawyer brush it aside for their own purpose then the case is not legal or just.

No: the prosecution is not obliged to prosecute an offence at all, let alone to the best of their ability: they are expected to exercise judgement about allocation of resources. Just as the police don't need to stop you for doing 71 in a 70 limit, or call out a forensics team to collect fingerprints and DNA swaps at the scene of a shoplifting, the CPS don't need to bring the most serious charges they could justify, or any charges at all. Given finite resources and an almost open-ended task of prosecuting crimes, how else could they function?

More than that, there are cases where technically an offence was committed, but prosecuting it isn't in the public interest. I recall the recent case of an ambulance driver caught speeding, in an ambulance with the lights going, while transporting an organ for transplant. Since he was transporting an organ rather than answering a 999 call, technically that was illegal - it could even have been prosecuted as dangerous driving - should the CPS really have been required to prosecute that as harshly as possible? For that matter, remember that consensual BDSM is technically an offence under English law: I don't think many of us on this site would like to see that prosecuted to the maximum extent possible!