“It Takes Two,” So “What’s Going On?”

In his paper A (Moral) Prisoner’s Dilemma: Character Ethics and Plea Bargaining, 1 Andrew Ingram presents us with an interesting variation on the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma. Ingram’s puzzle offers a change in perspective—a Prosecutor’s Dilemma. Two coconspirators scheme to jointly participate in a spree of petty thefts. During one of the petty thefts, they run into misfortune—they are caught. The police and prosecutor wisely suspect that more is going on, but evidence is scant. The prosecutor offers both the following deal: spill the beans, rat out your partner, and get a light(er) sentence. One accepts and one does not. Ingram believes that, in accepting the plea, the snitch has shown herself to be less honest—and less virtuous—than the loyal partner. Ingram argues that, in giving the snitch a lighter sentence than the loyal partner, the plea bargaining system has failed to preserve interests of justice. 2 Therein lies the puzzle: plea bargaining is an essential part of the criminal system, and yet it is on morally shaky grounds. What is a prosecutor to do? In my attempt to defuse the puzzle, I begin by briefly recapping Ingram’s argument and pointing to some of its implications. Then, in response, I proffer some worries: I argue that Ingram’s descriptions of the motivations of the criminals are unpersuasive. Next, I argue that when we investigate the prosecutor’s options and the resulting ramifications, it becomes apparent how the prosecutorial tactic of offering the deal to the two coconspirators attempts to preserve justice. In particular, I argue that there are many interests to be balanced, and use of the tactic is generally justifiable as an attempt to balance those many interests. Finally, I argue that there are limitations on using the tactic to preserve justice, and I distill basic guidelines for using the prosecutorial tactic that will safeguard the moral foundations of accomplice plea bargaining.