PLEA COMPROMISE REFERS TO THE EXCHANGE OF A GUILTY PLEA DISPOSITION FOR SENTENCE MITIGATION, A PHENOMENON MORE COMMONLY (BUT INACCURATELY) KNOWN AS PLEA BARGAINING. THE FORMAL PARAMETERS OF PLEA COMPROMISE IN NEW YORK AND LONDON, AS EMBODIED IN STATUTORY AND CASE LAW, ARE DESCRIBED AND COMPARED WITH THE ACTUAL OPERATION OF THE PLEA COMPROMISE PROCESS AT LOWER AND HIGHER COURT LEVELS OF THE TWO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS. PARTICULAR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE ROLES OF PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ACTUAL PROCESS IS CONSISTENT WITH FORMAL PARAMETERS, THE OPERATIONAL VALUES OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS, AND THE IMPACT OF THOSE VALUES ON PLEA COMPROMISE PRACTICES. DIFFERENCES IN THE FORMS OF PLEA COMPROMISE, BOTH BETWEEN THE TWO COURT SYSTEMS AND AT DIFFERENT LEVELS WITHIN EACH SYSTEM, ARE IDENTIFIED, AS ARE SHIFTS IN THE BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS AND BETWEEN THE STATE AND DEFENDANTS. THE ENGLISH BAR'S EMPHASIS ON ETHICS AND ITS RELATIVE LACK OF AWARENESS REGARDING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF PLEA COMPROMISE ARE CONTRASTED WITH THE NEW YORK BAR'S PRAGMATISM AND LEGAL REALISM, A CONTRAST THAT IS TRACED TO DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL VALUE SYSTEMS AND APPROACHES TO LEGAL EDUCATION IN THE TWO COUNTRIES. THE GREATER PREVALENCE OF ACTIVE, DIRECT, SPECIFIC JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE NEW YORK PLEA COMPROMISE PROCESS IS LINKED TO ATTITUDES AMONG PARTICIPANTS TOWARD THE LEGITIMACY OF DISCRETIONARY POWER (JUDICIAL OR PROSECUTORIAL) AND TOWARD THE NEED FOR A BALANCE BETWEEN THE STATE'S CONTROL OVER DEFENDANTS AND DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS. SUPPORTING DATA (INCLUDING STATISTICS FROM NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL COURTS, THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, AND ENGLISH MAGISTRATES' AND CROWN COURTS) AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)