The article critiques the argument that a defendant's decision to accept a prosecutor's proposal to plead guilty in return for a relatively lenient sentence is closely analogous to the decision to accept a gunman's proposal to spare one's life in exchange for one's money. Stating that assessments of duress involve both a psychological and a moral test, the article argues that the prosecutor's proposals, unlike the gunman's, are not sufficiently wrongful to meet the moral test of duress. However, the view that plea bargaining should be abolished is considered as correct for another reason; plea bargaining emphasizes conviction rather than the principle of justice. As a result, the sentence will be too lenient, and therefore unjust if the defendant is guilty, and will be unjust if the defendant is innocent. A total of 24 footnotes are included.