No one in the USA is ever "ordered" to admit guilt. It is quite plausible she agreed to admit guilt as part of a deal but never would she be forced.

A distinction without a difference. Compare:

"I order you to do X, and if you don't you'll be punished with bad thing Y."

vs.

"You can agree to do X, but if you don't then bad thing Y will happen to you."

The choice is the same. The difference is merely semantics.

Prosecutors in the USA are well known to use these sort of coercive tactics in plea deals all the time.

If you are ordered to do something there is very little, if any, wiggle room to say no. It is an order not a request.

We can discuss the ethical questions of plea deals, but I see that being different that a system that orders an admission of guilt. Such systems tend to be barbaric often extracting admissions of guilt via torture.

> there is very little, if any, wiggle room to say no. It is an order not a request.

In practice this is always enforced by a punishment, making it functionally indistinguishable from the first case.

Again, the only difference is semantics.

> I see [plea deals] being different

Then the semantics are doing their intended job: same official use of coercive force, now with better marketing.

> Such systems tend to be barbaric often extracting admissions of guilt via torture.

Let's not muddy the waters.

We all agree torture is bad (both when it's done in the USA and elsewhere), but your issue was with the appropriateness of the word "forced" to describe coercive plea deals.

Maybe the language is jarring, but some kind of apology and admission of guilt is often typical in plea bargain arrangements.