Should we (and could we) require prosecutors to explain plea deals?

As detailed in this story, in Utah some controversy has emerged as a result of questionable plea deals in a few high-profile cases.  In response, the Provo Daily Herald has made an interesting and thoughtful argument here that prosecutors should have to provide a public account of their plea choices:

Prosecutors should go ahead and make their deals as they see fit.  But they should be required to explain why -- especially in cases where a plea deal gives the impression that a suspect is getting off too easily. To the public, a deal may seem to give preferential treatment or suggest that prosecutors are not aggressively doing their jobs....

[W]hile prosecutors may have good reasons for offering or accepting a plea deal, it doesn't bolster their credibility if the public is not told why.  The courts are already shrouded in too much secrecy, and odd-looking deals don't help. A little public communication would do wonders for public understanding of the justice system and enhance the credibility of prosecutors.

Utah already requires judges to explain when they deviate from state sentencing guidelines in drunken driving cases.  The explanations are a good way to ensure that justice is being satisfied.

The same should be true for prosecutors when the make plea deals. Prosecutors are not private attorneys who represent only one party.  They represent the people of the community, and they should explain their reasoning to this important client.

Especially after participating in this great conference at Arizona State University, I continue to believe that, even after Booker, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the federal system remains the Achilles heel in all reform efforts.  Would a requirement of explanation for any and all prosecutorial "sentencing choices" improve the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and improve the federal sentencing world?