Plea bargaining is a good thing, perfectly just.

It helps solve cases in which, without the plea, would result in a guilty person running free. It can help solve cases when there might not be enough evidence for a guilty sentence.

Short and simple, plea bargaining is good.

Back to my social life

They don't let mass murderers plea bargain. They let someone, who say, was taking drug money, plea bargain. Lesser of two evils.

Plea Bargaining does not deliver justice.

How does is going to jail not justice?

I believe you're being pedantic about the whole issue really.


row

New resolution in LD Debate at school. This is the resolution verbatim:

In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

Plea bargaining - the negotiation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plead guilty to a reduced charge (Merriam-Webster Online).

Discuss.

I'd like to hear some ideas for arguments from you guys. In case you are unfamiliar with LD Debate or any semi-formal debate, you either affirm or negate the resolution, however, your points have to do with the resolution; in this case pertaining to the US. I'm not going to put strict guidelines on a topic though, since I know the majority of you probably don't take Debate as a class, and have a social life as well.

If you guys are familiar with debate I'd like some ideas for a criterion.

I also need some cards for evidence. Oh well, have fun debating this.

What I'm saying is that justice is justice, so what if they don't get the full time, as long as it's a significant period of time.

There are bigger issues in the world.


row

Who gets to decide the full time?

How can you debate bigger issues when you cannot fully address small ones?

Maximum sentence doesn't mean justice.

Minimum sentence doesn't mean injustice.

And no thank you on the criterion. I will use the Preservation of the Justice System as my criterion.

Pretend I'm affirmative:

"My opponent's case falls through completely. The value of justice is paramount within the round because it is implicit within the resolution. Therefore, you look to my value, justice on the affirmative side. Justice is paramount because we are determining whether or not Plea Bargaining is just. Therefore, today, I present the value:

Value: Justice.

The affirmative presents the the criterion of Detonology to uphold the value of justice. Detonology can be summed up by one phrase: "The means justify the ends." In otherwords, your actions justify your punishment."

Plea bargaining is a loophole within the justice system in which someone convicted can escape the original punishment. The main reason plea bargaining exists is for expediency. However, the cost of expediency is justice, and because justice is sacrificed as a result of plea bargaining, plea bargaining is unjust. Therefore, you affirm.

Of course this is a VERY brief outline of my case. Your case seems to only concentrate on those who plea bargain to testify for other cases. However, you don't address those who testify for their own cases. Furthermore, how can someone convicted of one thing be trusted to testify for another's? How do we know that they aren't lying?

Maximum sentence doesn't mean justice.

Minimum sentence doesn't mean injustice.

What's justice?


row

Justice can not rule in this case because if justice were above all then then would be no reason for justice to be. Justice serves to keeps a country's citizens safe and that is why it reigns in this case.

The criterion of Detonology can not be used this does not produce the best possible outcome, in contrary to Teleology, in which the end justify the means if they are the best possible outcome.

In most plea bargaining cases there is no set punishment, only what the persecutor assumes will be the punishment, and is usually the absolute worst that he/she can get depending on the crime, thus it is not a loop hole and this point stand irrelevant.

If plea bargains are used then the society becomes safer and justice is upheld through my value.

I would love to be able to actually debate you now that I see, in a shortened version, how you debate... Not likely though... too bad

Only if it benefits everyone else at the same time.

Double posted on accident.

Do you want to post our cases and then have a sort of formal LD debate online?

We can just have a word limit on the rebuttals and such.

That works.

I affirm the resolution:

RESOLVED: In the United States, Plea Bargaining in exchange for Testimony is unjust.

I will provide the following definitions from Merriam Webster for clarification:

Just: 1. having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason or 2. Fair and impartial treatment to ALL

Plea Bargaining – The Negotiation between a prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plead guilty to a reduced charge.

Legitimate – being exactly as purposed

Unfeigned – Genuine, not hypocritical

My Value Is That Of: Legitimacy – Legitimacy ensures that a justice system conforms to its own standards. If something is not legitimate, it is impossible to even consider the notion of that object being just. Therefore, legitimacy comes first.

My Criterion is an: Unfeigned Justice System – An unfeigned justice system means that the justice system is without hypocrisy. Not that a justice system is or can be completely just, but that the justice system delivers justice according to its own unfeigned, unbiased, and CONCRETE standards. If any hypocrisy within the justice system due to plea bargaining is shown, I win the round. The Justice System must deliver its own standard of justice to the best of their ability. If a justice system is hypocritical, it is not exactly as purposed and therefore cannot achieve legitimacy which in turn does not achieve justice.

Pre-Case Observation: The affirmative side of the resolution does not have to advocate the abolishment of plea bargaining. Nor does the affirmative side have to prove that plea bargaining is unnecessary. The burden is merely to prove that plea bargaining is unjust. Inversely, the negative side cannot prove that plea bargaining is unjust purely because it’s necessary. Slaves were necessary to the South’s economy but were unjust.


My Only Contention is that: Plea Bargaining is Unjust
Sub-point A: The Sentence may vary, but the charge must stay the same
The definition of plea bargaining itself causes us to come to an unfavorable conclusion: when a case is plea bargained, the charge does not actually describe the crime. Take murder for example. There are two main systems used to classify murder into degrees. The first standard being that which is used by Pennsylvania (amongst other states). By their definition, a first degree murder is one that is pre-meditated or involves certain especially dangerous felonies, such as arson or rape, or committed by an inmate serving a life sentence. Second degree murder by Pennsylvania’s (amongst other states) is that which is not pre-meditated (such as a sudden burst of rage). The second standard is that which New York and other states use. They define first degree murder as: involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders, and a second degree murder as one without these circumstances. The simple fact that a person is willing to cooperate with the government should not and does not change whether the crime itself was pre-meditated. However, it’s clear that plea bargaining does this, just by definition. This is an inherent hypocrisy within the system of plea bargaining, destroying any legitimacy, justice, or unfeignedness it might have. *I would like to stress that Murder is merely an example; and this applies to other charges as well.*
Sub-Point B: Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony allows negotiations for defendants who hold truth hostage
A plea bargain for testimony is a moral statement by the defendant saying that they will only release truth in exchange for something from the government. The government allowing the prosecutor to negotiate these terms is a moral statement by the government saying that it is okay to trade justice for truth every single time the justice system fails. Says Rousseau: “Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it…” Condolezza Rice says the Bush Administration doesn’t negotiate with terrorists who hold hostages. But right here in our homeland we allow negotiations with the terrorists of society for the hostage of truth as a standard. This shows that the government is not only hypocritical, it has blatantly failed, because their policy to obtain the truth is to extract it by negotiating with defendants who are holding it hostage through plea bargaining.
Sub-Point C: The Incentives are Given Inconsistently
The incentives are a main argument for plea bargaining; the argument is that “we should give something in return to those who help the government.” This fails on both sides. Firstly, we’re not “giving thanks”; we’re negotiating with those who hold truth hostage. Under such a policy we would have to give lenient sentences towards all government employees, which is clearly unjust and unimplementable. On the flip side the policy we have now doesn’t promise incentives consistently. Incentives should not be implemented, but when they are, the government must not show any hypocrisy when giving them to the defendant. However, this occurs, as often those defendants do not receive the “incentives” the government promises them.
[Pamela Metzger Northwestern University Law Review, Summer 2003] “Unlike other plea agreements, a cooperation agreement only requires the prosecution to make vague and largely unenforceable promises about sentence outcomes. The defendant promises to provide complete and truthful information. The defendant also agrees to disclose all past criminal activities. Further, the defendant agrees to testify in grand jury or trial proceedings and, when asked, to participate in monitored telephone conversations or engage in other surveillance-type activities, such as wearing a wire. The agreement also requires the defendant to agree to postpone his sentence until his cooperation is deemed complete.

In exchange, the government makes only one promise: if the defendant provides substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of another individual, the prosecution will make a motion to the sentencing judge for a reduction of the defendant's sentence. Several caveats, and even an explicit threat, accompany this promise. First and foremost, the government is to be the sole judge of whether the defendant has truthfully and completely cooperated. The decision as to whether the cooperation rises to the level of substantial assistance will be left to the sole discretion of the prosecutor's office. Often a cooperation agreement does not specify the extent of the departure the government will request. And, even if it did, that request would not be binding upon the sentencing court. Finally, if the defendant fails to perform under the terms of the agreement, the prosecutor's office retains the right to use the defendant's statements against him at a subsequent prosecution for false statements.”
This clearly shows another hypocrisy due to plea bargaining when testifying for other criminals. The government shouldn’t give incentives to those who plea bargain, but if they do, they have to be consistent in delivering those incentives. Clearly, they fail in both categories. Because plea bargaining has made the justice system so hypocritical and illegitimate, I urge an affirmative vote.