Opponents of plea bargaining claim that: (1) negotiated justice increases the existing inequality and selectivity of criminal justice; (2) criminal law and criminal justice ought to abide by the principle of foreseeability; (3) negotiated punishment seems to contradict the control structure of criminal law; (4) toying with the legality principle undermines the credibility and functioning of the criminal justice system; (5) negotiation tends to occur outside the public hearing; (6) the judge's active participation in negotiations might touch on judicial impartiality; and (7) a negotiation process may dilute the presumption of innocence, since it favors a co-operative model of procedure and a co-operative defendant. The main justification for bargaining from the state's point of view is expediency. The defendant's position is more difficult to assess. It is unclear whether plea bargaining practices represent a transition phase or a new type of process. They should be at the top of the agenda for study of moral and social principle concerning the criminal justice system. Notes