Data indicate that when actual sentences are compared to expected sentences, there is little evidence to support the argument that plea bargaining is a coercive method of allocating sanctions. While a substantial difference existed between the proportion of defendants incarcerated after pleading guilty (.42) versus those convicted at trial (.72) these reflect differences in case characteristics and the fact that not all defendants who pleaded guilty would have been convicted at trial. Defendants who gained most from plea bargaining in terms of sentence outcomes were less serious, marginal offenders, with less evidence against them. Conversely, defendants on probation or parole at time of arrest, those with prior felony arrests, and those with a history of drug abuse did not escape incarceration by pleading guilty. Collectively, findings suggest that plea bargaining is a neutral component in criminal case processing that neither errodes the deterrent effect of the law nor results in a two-tier sentencing system. 6 tables.