>What if there were no pleading, every case went to trial, and the penalty was the one assigned to the circumstances of the case at the beginning of the trial.
This is a misunderstanding of how things work and is begging the question. Part of the trial is determining what punishment is appropriate based on the facts and arguments presented in the trial. Indeed, determining the "circumstances of the case" is at the core of what a trial is.
That's fair. Perhaps what I'm thinking of is how to prevent abuse of plea bargaining -- allowing the police to bypass examination of the evidence by threatening an extreme punishment.
> allowing the police to bypass examination of the evidence by threatening an extreme punishment
Police can threaten any punishment they want. Police only get to assign punishment for a crime if they choose to end your life on the spot.
The District/State Attorney (and their assistants) are the ones that have to prosecute and are the proxy for the state that choose the opening bid for punishment.
This is a misunderstanding of how things work and is begging the question. Part of the trial is determining what punishment is appropriate based on the facts and arguments presented in the trial. Indeed, determining the "circumstances of the case" is at the core of what a trial is.