This is the source of frequent criticism of the pleading system: some defendants, even if they have not really committed the crime, will feel compelled to take the lighter sentence instead of asserting their constitutional right to a fair trial because they cannot afford a “first-class” legal defense. Another argument against Plea Bargaining is that it may not really reduce the costs of administering justice. For example, if a prosecutor has only a 25% chance of winning his case and sending an accused to prison for 10 years, he can enter into a plea agreement for a one-year sentence; But if pleadings are not available, a prosecutor can drop the case altogether.  John H. Langbein argues that the modern American advocacy system is comparable to the medieval European torture system: people convicted of one offense arrested for another minor offense are more likely to be convicted later — part of a deliberate strategy, according to Issa Kohler-Hausmann, associate professor of law and sociology at Yale University. In a provocative article in the 2014 Stanford Law Review, Kohler-Hausmann supported the article “Managerial Justice and Mass Misdemeanors” about the increase in arrests of offenses in New York, which even took place when arrests of offenses decreased. The authorities, she argued, tend to pay “little attention” to assessing “guilt in isolated cases.” Instead, they use a policy of “mass crime” to manage people living in “neighborhoods where crime rates are high and the minority population is high.” These defendants, she writes, are displaced by the criminal justice system and have few opportunities to do a business for themselves.