During her time as DA in Alameda County, Pamela Price often faced blowback for routine things such as plea deals—which are the staple of 97 to 98 percent of all cases.
Now that her successor has offered a plea deal to a man involved in a 2019 fatal shooting, it seems the media has lost interest in the issue.
“It seems plea deals for murder are ok under the new DA,” Price tweeted on Friday. “No second guessing, no false outrage, no victim interviews! Seems like everything is back to normal once we got rid of a progressive DA! Just like SF!”
In a nation that prides itself on the fairness of its legal institutions, the treatment of plea deals has become a lightning rod for ideological battles. Across cities and counties, from East Oakland to Philadelphia, the handling of homicide cases by district attorneys has come under intense scrutiny—not simply for the outcomes of individual cases, but for what those outcomes say about partisan politics and the allocation of justice.
The double standard in how plea bargains are received reveals more than just differences in legal philosophy; it exposes a deep-seated politicization of prosecutorial discretion.
Plea agreements are the engine that powers the criminal justice system. With over 97% of criminal cases resolved without a full trial, these deals are not anomalies but everyday necessities in an overburdened system. They help manage caseloads, enable resource allocation, and—when executed properly—offer a measure of mercy in cases where the evidence may be murky.
Yet despite their ubiquity, plea deals have become a battleground for critics and political pundits alike.
Take the recent case in Alameda County referenced by Price, involving a 2019 fatal shooting in East Oakland. Two men facing serious charges entered plea deals: one admitted voluntary manslaughter, while the other, charged with attempted murder, received a substantially reduced sentence after already serving time awaiting trial.
“It seems plea deals for murder are ok under the new DA,” Price tweeted on Friday. “No second guessing, no false outrage, no victim interviews! Seems like everything is back to normal once we got rid of a progressive DA! Just like SF!”
Under a conventional prosecutorial approach, these decisions are seen as pragmatic responses to complex legal realities.
But they have been used as ammunition in the heated debates surrounding progressive prosecutorial policies—a double standard that calls into question the true nature of justice in our society.
The controversy is not in the mechanics of plea bargains but in the politicization of prosecutorial discretion.
Progressive district attorneys, like Pamela Price, have championed reforms that aim to reduce mass incarceration and address systemic inequalities. Their approaches are characterized by a willingness to offer alternatives to incarceration, especially for non-violent offenders or cases that highlight the failings of broader systemic issues.
However, these very actions are frequently derided as evidence of being “soft on crime,” even when they follow the same legal logic that has long guided more traditional prosecutors.
In the public eye, the same legal decision can be painted as either innovative reform or a reckless concession—depending entirely on who makes it. This dichotomy is problematic.
When a traditional district attorney quietly negotiates a plea deal that takes into account mitigating circumstances, the action is subsumed into the background of an already overworked system.
Yet when a progressive DA, who positions themselves as a reformer, undertakes an identical move, critics seize upon it as if it were a betrayal of justice. The reaction is less about the deal itself and more about an expectation, often unrealistic, placed on public officials to achieve a moral panacea by force of will.
Media coverage is a powerful force in the discourse on criminal justice. Headlines that decry plea deals in progressive jurisdictions contribute to a narrative that equates reform with leniency, and vice versa. When reforms aim to reduce sentences as part of a broader strategy to address the root causes of crime or to de-escalate an overextended penal system, the lack of outrage is telling.
The traditional prosecutorial method rarely garners similar criticism, allowing these decisions to pass without the same level of public rebuke. This selective outrage underscores a double standard: the same legal outcome—a plea deal—is judged not on its merits or its effects, but on who delivers it.
At its core, this double standard is symptomatic of deeper societal inequities. The very institutions intended to serve justice are themselves reflections of the political, social, and cultural fractures within our country.
When discussions about plea bargains turn into debates about political ideology, we risk losing sight of the fundamental aim of the justice system: to fairly adjudicate cases and to balance accountability with compassion. The politicization of these decisions not only distorts public perception but also undermines the trust essential to any judicial process.
The intense scrutiny faced by progressive DAs is, in part, a reflection of how society perceives race, class, and justice. The expectation that certain prosecutors should perform miracles—deliver outcomes that simultaneously appease both a desire for accountability and a need for systemic reform—places an impossible burden on these individuals.
When even conventional DA approaches are later reframed by critics who once decried progressive measures, it’s clear that the debate is less about sound legal policy and more about symbolic victories.
The stakes of this double standard extend beyond media narratives and political debates. Every plea deal represents a life affected—victims who feel that justice has been shortchanged, defendants who receive a second chance, and communities that are forced to reckon with the imperfections of the criminal justice system.
When the decision-making process is politicized, the human cost becomes secondary to the pursuit of ideological purity.
A fair system must acknowledge that no single approach can magically resolve decades of systemic inequity.
Whether the plea deal is struck by a progressive or a traditional prosecutor, the underlying challenges remain: a system overrun by caseloads, systemic biases that disadvantage marginalized communities, and an inherent tension between the ideals of restorative justice and the demands for retribution.
To move past the double standard, it is crucial for all stakeholders—lawyers, judges, policymakers, and citizens—to engage in honest debates about how to reform the system rather than stigmatizing one approach as inherently flawed.
The solution may lie in bridging the ideological divide. Instead of casting prosecutorial discretion as either wholly good or wholly bad based on the political identity of the DA, a more productive conversation would evaluate outcomes based on transparency, consistency, and fairness.
Reform advocates must also be ready to critique systemic problems that transcend political lines—the overcrowded courts, the lack of adequate resources for defense, and the chronic underfunding of rehabilitation programs.
Similarly, critics of progressive policies should recognize that the call for reform is not an endorsement of unchecked leniency but a plea for a more humane and efficient system.
Ultimately, the double standard in addressing plea deals reflects an enduring challenge: how do we balance the pursuit of justice with the need for pragmatic legal administration? If we are to move forward, we must hold all public officials to the same high standard of accountability, regardless of their political leanings.
This means scrutinizing every plea agreement through the lens of fairness and impact—not through polarized politics.
In a society where every criminal case carries deep social and political ramifications, the conversation must shift from blame and spectacle to genuine efforts at reform.
The promise of equal justice under the law can only be realized if we stop allowing ideological battles to dictate the narrative. Instead, we need to focus on how best to serve all members of our society with a system that is both efficient and compassionate.
