Study subjects included judges, prosecutors, public defenders, detectives, private attorneys, and defendants. Emphasis was placed on public defenders and private lawyers. The study instrument contained 48 statements about plea bargaining. Subjects' responses were factor analyzed to produce seven distinct perspectives on plea bargaining. The resulting perspectives were divided into major perspectives and minor perspectives. The first major perspective, the professional perspective, was shared by 17 attorneys and 1 other person. This perspective was characterized by defensiveness about the legal profession's role in plea bargaining, especially about the public defender's role. The professionals were less concerned about questions of due process and appeared confident in their ability to control the plea bargaining process from possible abuse. The second major perspective, the prodefendant perspective, was concerned mainly with questions of due process.It was also trustful of the private attorney and critical of the public defender. This perspective was shared by five defendants, two detectives, an one private attorney. Five minor perspectives were also found. It was concluded that contrary to conventional wisdom, plea bargaining is not equally accepted by all participants in the system. In addition, the widespread use of plea bargaining also indicated that the public is willing to accept lawyers' expertise in conducting plea bargaining. Moreover, the professional perspective contrasts sharply with most plea bargaining literature. Results suggested that alternatives to the public defedner system may be desirable and that the role of attorneys is accepted by those both inside and outside the system. A literature review, tables, chapter notes, a bibliography listing 52 references, and an appendix presenting the study instrument are included.