In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

Because this is my first debate I thought I would start with an older LD topicc. The debate will of course be in LD form. I affirm that In the United States plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust. I will offer the following definitions to clarify the round- Merriam Webster defines plea bargaining as the negotiation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plead guilty to reduced charge Testimony is a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official The standard is Procedural Justice. First, the resolution asks if something is unjust and the only type of Justice that can be used for this resolution is Procedural Justice because it asks if a court procedure is just. Second, since the resolution is contextualized in the United States, we have to use a type of justice relevant to the U.S.. Court systems don't have time to evaluate case by case so a procedure must be used. Harry J. Sapienza, University of South Carolina explains, Research and theory suggest that procedural justice is valued by individuals for two main reasons (Lind & Tyler, 1988). First, procedural justice provides assurance that an individual's self-interest is protected over the long run. Fair procedures and treatment serve as an important sign of the decision maker's benevolence, honesty and neutrality (Lind, 1997). This process may be critical in board relationships, given that board members have diverse and often conflicting interests. Research suggests that when a particular decision is not in an individual's best self-interest, just procedures ensure the individual that, over time, he or she will receive what is due from the exchange relationship. Second, procedural justice is thought to be important to individuals because it affirms their status and value to the relationship, group or organization. This view is based on the assumption that people come to value and derive their identity from memberships in groups. Being treated with fairness, dignity, and respect are important to maintaining status in the group. Thus, the theory suggests that the personal relationship among board members will influence the flow of information and the way decisions are made. Sapienza gives two reasons why procedural justice is good. First, procedural justice protects individual's interests in the long run. Second, It affirms individuals their value to the relationship, group or organization. My first contention is that plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is not procedurally just. Subpoint A- Plea Bargaining in exchange for testimony incentivizes lying. In hopes of getting a shorter prison sentence as a reward, criminals may falsely accuse an innocent person of being an accomplice. The incentive for lying is a shorter prison sentence, which is in no regards procedurally just. People who lie and commit severe crimes shouldn't be rewarded with shorter prison sentences while people who don't lie and commit misdemeanors receive longer sentences, thus showing that plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is not procedurally just. . Cliffor s. Fishman, Professor of Law furthers; "Occasionally, however, a prosecutor might quite sincerely and reasonably, but incorrectly, believe certain "facts" to be true, and might make it clear to the accomplice that there will be no deal unless the accomplice incorporates those "facts" into his testimony. The risk is substantially greater that a supposed accomplice might falsely incriminate one or more defendants in order to have something to offer the prosecutor and thereby obtain a deal more generous than he deserves." By offering plea bargaining in exchange for testimony we are A. Convicting an innocent person and B. Giving the criminal a substantial decrease in his prison time. We are not abiding by a fair procedure which would give each his due. Instead we are convicting an innocent person, and thus plea bargaining is unjust. Subpoint B- People May be Threatened to testify against themselves In order to not get convicted, heinous criminals may threaten an innocent person, and force them to testify against themselves. Fishman, continues; "the witness is accepting sole responsibility for the crime because the defendant, or someone connected with him, has bribed or, more likely still, threatened, the witness or his family. Where there is evidence to support this possibility, the prosecutor will of course seek to offer it. For example, where a high-ranking member of a street gang is charged with a crime, a subordinate might falsely testify to his own guilt to exonerate the defendant, either out of loyalty or out of fear. In such a case, an expert witness on street gangs can testify that this is a common pattern among gang members." This also leads to faulty convictions and is not procedurally just because when lying to the jury the innocent person is changing the course of the conviction and in turn the conviction procedure, thus is not procedurally just. Subpoint C- Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony increases crime. Alexandra Natapoff Professor of Law Explains; "As the example demonstrates, Not only do informants' past crimes go unpunished, but authorities routinely tolerate the commission of new crimes—both authorized and unauthorized—as part of the cost of maintaining an active informant. The phenomenon is particularly troubling because it represents under-enforcement and tolerance of criminality in high-crime communities. Authorities may also indirectly ratify the interests of informants when those informants provide information selectively and in self-serving ways. This scenario is repeated over and over, both within the criminal system and in the community, creating dynamics of scale. Within the system, the effect is a shift in the adjudicatory process whereby police and prosecutors informally adjudicate the criminal liability of informants based primarily on expediency and investigative usefulness. Within the community, large numbers of criminals remain active who, due to their role as government informer, obtain some degree of immunity (and, arguably, arrogance) even as they continue their antisocial behavior." in exchange of giving evidence people are essentially allowed to commit crimes. This does not achieve procedural justice because the justice system is lenient on crimes committed by people who give evidence. Because plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust, I afffirm.