THE DISCUSSION FOCUSES ON TWO ASPECTS OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION: THE DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL, SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMENCING PROSECUTION NOT WITHSTANDING; AND THE DECISION TO MAKE CONCESSIONS TO A CHARGED INDIVIDUAL ON THE CONDITION THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PLEAD GUILTY RATHER THAN STAND TRIAL. EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH DECISIONS ARE MADE, THE BASIS ON WHICH THEY ARE MADE, AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES. THE DISCUSSION, WHICH INCLUDES REFERENCES TO PRACTICES AND POLICIES IN WASHINGTON STATE AND ELSEWHERE, TOUCHES ON SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES THROUGH PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, THE PROSECUTOR'S DECISION PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, THE PROSECUTOR'S DECISION PROSECUTION WOULD BRING TO AN OFFENDER (INDIVIDUALIZATION OF JUSTICE), AND APPLICATION OF DIVERSION AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO PROSECUTION. THE EXTENT OF PLEA BARGAINING IN WASHINGTON IS EXAMINED, AND RATIONALES FOR PLEA BARGAINING (ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERNS, INDIVIDUALIZED JUSTICE, RECORD BUILDING, CONCESSION IN EXCHANGE FOR INFORMATION) ARE CONSIDERED. NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF PLEA BARGAINING ARE DISCUSSED, INCLUDING THE COERCIVE EFFECT OF PLEA BARGAINING ON CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT PLEA BARGAINING MIGHT UNFAIRLY PENALIZE INNOCENT PEOPLE AND UNFAIRLY DIFFERENTIATE AMONG CONVICTED INDIVIDUALS. REFORMS SUGGESTED TO CONFINE, STRUCTURE, AND CHECK PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN PLEA BARGAINING ARE NOTED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT PLEA BARGAINING SHOULD NOT BE ELIMINATED, BUT THAT PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IN PLEA BARGAINING SHOULD BE CONTROLLED BY STANDARDS.