A) Plea Bargaining is a central aspect of the criminal justice system and it prevents collapse.

Bing 09 Plea bargaining is an admission of guilt in exchange for a reduced charge or sentence. It is arguably one of the most publicized and controversial manifestations of the courtroom. Affecting practically every phase of the criminal justice system, plea bargaining is used as a substitute for jury trials, disposing of almost 90% of criminal cases. Those who favor this type of case disposition argue that without plea bargaining, the entire criminal justice system would collapse under the weight of an excessive caseload. B) Link Most inquisitorial systems forbid plea bargaining. Burens and Haag 131
Due to their international nature the courts are somewhere in between an adversarial procedural system and an inquisitorial system and the use of plea bargains is therefore still con-tested.

While plea bargaining is widespread in adversarial mostly common law systems, its use in more inquisitorial civil law systems is still debated and not generally accepted.48 This is based on the different understanding of the purpose of a criminal trial as shown earlier and goes hand in hand with a divers comprehension of truth in a proceeding. Inquisitorial systems are fundamentally incompatible with plea bargaining. Burens and Haag 13
One could argue that with a trend in most domestic systems towards an adversarial system, in which negotiated criminal justice mechanisms are more common, also international criminal law

plea bargaining cannot be reconciled with the (traditional) inquisitorial version of truth-seeking.52 It is contrary to the main concept of this system that parties influence the outcome of the trial by their actions, and that it is not an in-dependent judge who does so.
should be open to such mechanisms.51Incontrast

C) Impact: First, this link turns all desert arguments- juries are racist and convict minorities more denying them due.

research using archival data on felonydispositions during the mid-1970s reveals that juries tended to sentence Hispanic offenders to prison more often than Anglos, regardless of factors such as conviction severity or prior record(Daudistel & Holmes 1979; Holmes & Daudistel 1984; LaFree1985). If this tendency continued, it is possible that Hispanic defendants were at a disadvantage under the no plea bargaining policy. In this respect, then, the quality of justice may have diminished.
On the other hand,

cases presented to the grand jury were supported by more evidenceafter the ban (Daudistel 1980; McDonald 1985; Weninger1987); weak cases that probably would go to trial were lesslikely to be accepted. Indeed, recent data compiled by thescreening section of the district attorney's office show that halfof the cases filed by police are declined for prosecution or arereferred to the county attorney's office for prosecution as misdemeanors(see also McDonald 1985).
We suspect that the post-intervention consistency in theconviction rate reflects the case screening procedures put intoplace after the plea bargaining ban. It appears that

Burens, Laura. Haag, Den. Plea Bargaining in International Criminal Tribunals. 2013