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

Because plea-bargaining leads to false testimony and bartering, I affirm the resolution. Resolved: In the United States plea-bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust. I offer the following definitions from Cambridge university press dictionary to clarify the round: Plea Bargain: A plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case in which a prosecutor and a defendant arrange to settle the case against the defendant. The defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest and in some cases to also provide testimony against another person in exchange for some agreement from the prosecutor as to the punishment. Exchange: To give something to someone and receive something from them. Testimony: In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of supposed fact. Unjust: Simply not just I now give you one observation: 1. The negative has to prove some specific benefit to testimonial plea-bargaining for it is not functionally identical to plea-bargaining in general. I value Justice, defined as giving each his or her due. The resolution is asking to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of actions, presumably making justice the end goal. My Criterion is maintaining fair judicial procedures. Owen Flanagan states" If justice is the first virtue of law and politics, then fair judicial procedures is an essential element in its attainment. For no matter how good and just the laws supporting them may be, without fair suitable procedures they would fail in their purposes. If the criminal law is to be enforced, if the legal standards regulating and directing an array or activities are to be upheld, if burdens and benefits are to be distributed in accordance with the binding norms, and if disputes between parties are to be resolved, then fair procedures appropriate to each of those tasks must be maintained. " This criterion is preferable for two reasons: 1. It is necessary because it outlines the procedures that a fair government would take to protect its citizens 2. It is objective because it acts as a weighing mechanism that both debaters can link back to. My first contention is: plea-bargaining in exchange for testimony gives the accomplice an incentive to fabricate the truth. With this chance to lie you are creating an unfair judicial procedure. Sub point A: Testifying accomplices lie because of self-interest. Christine J. Saverda explains," The accomplice has especially compelling reasons to testify on his own behalf. He will often have pleaded guilty, or have agreed to plead guilty to the offense or a related offense, and will be awaiting sentencing. It is in his interest not only to implicate others but also to minimize his own role and exaggerate the roles of his co-conspirators. He may on the other hand, have escaped indictment on the charges by telling a story which exonerates himself and shifts the blame to the accused. In short, his sanctuary may depend upon the self serving nature of his story. " These testifying accomplices lie due to self-interest, because it is easier for them to get a lesser sentence. By manipulating the story in his favor he can receive a lesser sentence, when giving false testimony you are producing unfair judicial procedures. Sub point B: Mistakes in testimony can lead to unjust convictions. Cliffor Fishman states, "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. " Alexandra Natapoff states," Criminal informants play a prominent role in the wrongful conviction phenomenon. According to Northwestern Law School's Center on Wrongful Convictions, 45.9% of documented wrongful capital convictions have been traced to false testimony. " This shows clearly how false testimony causes unjust convictions. Unfair judicial procedures are created due to the conviction of innocent because of false testimony. Sub point C: Fabricated testimonies threaten the credibility of the judicial system. Christine J. Saverda explains," Existing sanctions and strictures have proved that inadequate in detecting and curtailing the numerous instances of perjury that result when the government, via the prosecutor, entices a witness to testify in return for some type of consideration. Whether in the form of a more lenient sentence, a dropped charge, or immunity, in practical terms these promises are really rewards offered by the prosecution. Because the prosecution actually induces the testimony, the government should make forthright attempt to ensure that the ensuing testimony is void of falsity. Perjury not only threatens the accuracy of the fact-finding process but insidiously undermines the entire criminal justice system by attenuation the societal respect necessary for maintaining the system's viability. " This is unjust because when a judicial procedure lacks credibility, citizens can no longer feel secure about the government not violating their rights. Sub point D: It is really easy for testifying accomplices to lie. Christine J. Saverda states," An accomplice claims to have participated in the intricacies of the crime alleged. Thus he portrays himself as having firsthand knowledge of the illegal act as well as being the witness most capable of relating the details of the criminal activity to the jury. This claim to "inside knowledge" coupled with the fact that his testimony is usually the most damaging evidence against the defendant, allows the accomplice to deviate from the truth without arousing the jury's suspicion. Since the accomplice alone knows about the pattern of criminal events, he can manipulate the details of those events without blatant discrepancies. In effect, then, little room remains to questions the veracity of his testimony. Thus, his testimony proposes a unique danger: the increased probability that a jury will, unquestioningly and with little scrutiny, accept his story as true because of its inherent "believability. " This easiness to lie creates an unfair judicial procedure. Sub point E: Juries may be unaware of the accomplices lack of credibility. Saverda again states," Not only are jurors unaware that they should search for evidence to corroborate the accomplice's testimony, they are also not consistently instructed to view such testimony with caution. Hence, their neutral assessment and unquestioning acceptance of the testimony as true is predictable since they have no reason for not viewing it as on par with that of other witnesses. Moreover, in the absence of mandatory cautionary jury instructions, appellate courts are burdened with the task of determining where a particular set of instructions was adequate to ensure justice at the trial level. Understandably, the appellate decisions in this area have proved inconsistent and have generated uncertainty in trial courts. " You can not maintain fair judicial procedures when juries may be unaware of the accomplices lack of credibility. In conclusion, plea-bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust due to false testimony.