Plea negotiations are often criticized on the basis that they may result from deception, coercion, and unethical practices. Nevertheless, they are highly valued by legal practitioners and widely used as a means of case disposition. Legal practitioners deny that negotiations are bargains for defendants and distance themselves from any involvement in sentencing. At the same time, they justify their participation in three major ways. First, they view negotiated settlements as more efficient and predictable than trials. Second, through the entry of appropriate guilty please, they regard negotiated settlements as achieving substantive justice by linking the disposition with the facts of a case. Finally, trials are viewed as unnecessary, because defendants are largely perceived as morally culpable and substantively guilty. Given these justifications, the probable establishment of a formal system of plea negotiations in the United Kingdom will strengthen the crime-control ethos of the criminal justice system. 48 references (Author abstract modified)