Wow, it's been awhile since I visited Off Topic. I have quite a few comments on this.
Firstly, how do we know this story is true? If it truly is three years old, the author should certainly be able to post details about the case. But everything is incredibly vague. It reads just like so many other Facebook dramas that eventually show up on Snopes as hoaxes. (This one isn't on Snopes, one way or the other.) It could be one of a million different cases; it's just that generic. So for all we know, everyone posting here could be getting all bent out of shape over absolutely nothing.
Next, this statement is largely bullshit:
Very few cases here actually make it to trial, the overwhelming majority are settled with plea bargains for lesser sentences. Which lawyers, judges jailors and police all love because 1. It keeps them all employed. 2. High conviction rates look good. 3. It's fast and relatively easy. 4. It closes the case forever. Never mind if the accused actually did it or not, or if the confession was coerced.
Not so much the first part, as it's true that a majority of cases are plea bargained as an alternative to trial, but instead regarding the second statement. I won't speak for judges, since I really don't know how they feel about plea bargaining. I know quite a few lawyers, and those who are prosecutors tend to dislike plea bargains, as they let the bad guys off easy. They see the importance of plea bargains as the most effective means of reducing their case loads, and for that reason they go along with them. But I wouldn't say they love them.
Jailers are pretty ambivalent when it comes to plea bargains. I used to be one, and I know many; I should know. Plea bargains don't really effect the job a jailer does. They'll be dealing with the shitbags regardless of whether they cop a plea or push their case to a jury trial.
And I can absolutely speak for police officers. I am one, and I'm married to one. I know literally hundreds of them. And yet, I can't think of a single one who like plea bargaining. We put quite a bit of work into every case that reaches the court system. We take pride in the work that we do. We put together convincing cases that show why the person we threw in jail is guilty of whatever charges we're referring to the D.A., and we pore over those cases to make sure they're solid. So why would we "love" the idea of letting that suspect off with less than what we can prove they're guilty of?
Imagine if you're (back) in college, and you're tasked with writing a research paper. You make several trips to the library (hey, this is my story, so this is back before the internets) to do your research. You interview dozens of authorities, sketch out a few diagrams to support your research, and proofread your work several times to make sure it's professional. Then you turn your paper in, and instead of evaluating your work by its own merit, your professor flips a coin to determine what grade you will receive. That is how police feel about plea bargaining. It's hardly fair, it's hardly just, and it makes your work seem insubstantial. So please, don't tell me that police love plea bargaining, because you clearly have no clue what you're getting at if you feel that way.
It's not hard to see why, for one thing just look at any American police procedural show made over the last 70 or 80 years (if you go back into radio plays with Dragnet and the like) the detective in the American mind is a godlike, benevolent and grizzled savior who is never wrong or motivated by the pressures of real life bureaucracy.
These same shows also inevitably show every case going to a Jury trial, which is absurd. Sometimes the defense lawyers are outright vilified like in Law & Order. For many, perhaps most, Americans this and media circus trials like Micheal Jackson and OJ Simpson is where the entirety of their "knowledge" about the CJS comes from.
Are you really using TV shows to support your views on the American justice system? Ironically, this ties in with the complaint of the writer of the original story, when he says that his mind was made up by the lack of DNA evidence. Shows like CSI have convinced the TV-hooked public that every case needs DNA evidence before a conviction can be made. Very few cases involve DNA evidence. I collect DNA samples in maybe 5% of the cases I investigate. It's just not present or not relevant most of the time.
In DNA discussions, I always think about a jury trial I lost a few years ago. It was a sexual assault case with 3-yr old and 5-yr old female victims, and the suspect was an adult friend of the family. The case was rock solid, but the jury rejected all the evidence showing that the suspect was guilty, because they wanted to see DNA evidence and there wasn't any (after every case, there is a "jury poll" that shows anonymously how the jurors voted and why they felt the way they did).
In the end, I question stories like this one. I'm obviously biased by my profession, and that's why I'll always be excused from a jury panel. But please, don't be so quick to believe stories like this that have no way of being verified.