In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system.

I will first refute my opponents case then rebuild my own: OPPONENTS CASE------------------------------------------------ 1. a. Trials are necessary for justice: Thus, one might be surprised to learn of one of the chief findings of some of the studies that have been conducted on plea bargaining: pleading guilty is associated with higher levels of perceived fairness among defendants than is going to trial, especially in emotional crimes. Further we must note the right to a speedy trial and trial by jury are not inalienable rights, and thus can be conceded for some sort of benefit; in the end prosecutors have enough resources necessary punish capitol crimes, while the defendant has the privilege of choice. Finally it must noted that plea bargains are not mandatory and the defendant can receive a trial if he so wishes. b. Punishment must be decided in court: It does not, as you seem to think, grant a criminal a certain sentence after they agree not to go to trial. The imposition of the sentence is up to a judge, who can vary either up or down (depending on the individual circumstances). A plea bargain only gives a court a recommendation as to a sentence. The judge need not---and very often does not---follow that recommendation. Thus, even if every criminal took a plea bargain, there is no guarantee that the sentences would actually be lower than if they went to trial. 2. Plea Bargaining is unjust a. Plea Bargaining is Coercive: Before a judge can accept a plea bargain recommendation, it must be demonstrated that the person voluntarily and knowingly waived their rights and plead guilty to the charge. Texas courts are actually obligated to document proof of this to ensure the waivers on record reflect a voluntary and knowing waiver of rights. It is demeaning to capable adults to suggest that they are not capable of understanding the consequences of accepting the contract that is plea bargaining, a contract from which the defendant gains considerable benefits. Look at this the other way: of course the defendant has a right to a fair trial, but why can't he give up that right in return for a lesser sentence. b. Plea Bargaining Replaces Trials: "Dr. Craig Roberts Continues: "According to common law, a defendant must be proved guilty; but plea-bargaining enables the State to avoid its burden."" WTF? c. Moral Hazard: In accepting a plea bargain, they will tell everything that they know. Telling what they don't actually know and lying would be more incriminating against them. Criminals have good reason to fear that any lies or exaggerations they tell will be revealed. They are not the only ones giving testimony and a body of facts does often exist to corroborate with testimonies. Criminals giving testimony in exchange for plea-bargain, therefore, have good reason to fear that any false testimony they give will contradict other testimonies and the facts, that their plea-bargain-exchange might subsequently be invalidated, and that they might be subject to further penalties as a result of their false testimony. MY CASE----------------------------------------------------------- 1. The capabilities of the judicial system are severely limited. It can't try every case or bring proportional punishment to everyone. The best alternative, therefore, is to attempt to achieve the highest level of social justice. We give plea bargains to misdemeanor in order to have the resources necessary to prosecute rapists to the fullest extent of the law. Now look to the alternative, without plea bargaining it would take years for cases to reach trial which undoubtedly compromises the defendants 6th amendment right to a speedy trial. According to National Crime Research Bureau Study, nearly 2, 20,000 cases took more than 3 years to reach court and about 25,600 exhausted 10 years before they were completed. Also the time between arrest and trials is inordinately long, which affects the conviction rate. If courts had unlimited resources to hold trials, 70 to 80 percent of all cases would still end up with pleas. 2. Innocent getting punished: There innocent is undoubtedly at risk for incarceration regardless of trial by jury or a plea. My opponent's point is based on a flawed justice system, not on plea bargaining itself, thus should be disregarded. Sometimes, innocent people get sent to prison. In just as many cases, guilty people get set free. Our system is designed such that there are built-in checks and balances, appeals processes, and trials by juries of your peers. We do everything we can to ensure the guilty are sentenced and the innocent are set free. Guilty get off easier: See above 3. See above 4. Compromise in necessary in our current criminal justice system. In those cases where murderers do get plea bargains, the evidence is scant (or at least at the level where a prosecutor does not feel like he can get a sure conviction) or there are mitigating circumstances. Remember, it is the job of a prosecutor to hand out justice (not just defend society, but defend society and protect society in proportionality to the crime committed in the circumstances in which it was committed), not to get the death penalty in every case. (In fact, I think most people would say that ignoring the facts of a particular crime would actually create an injustice.) 5. See above