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

First, an observation, the resolution presented is plea bargaining for testimony is unjust, not plea bargaining is unjust, thus any arguments which refer to the plea bargaining system as a whole are irrelevant to the debate at hand because it is only referring to instances in which a defendant receives a lesser sentence in exchange for their testimony in another trial. Case The value is Governmental Legitimacy because first, a government's highest duty is to be legitimate in the eyes of its citizens and second, the resolution evaluates the actions of a state. The criterion is the Maximization of Social Welfare. This is the best criterion for 3 reasons. First, because the resolution is asking us to evaluate a government action the most resolution specific standard evaluates whether the agent of action is just in taking that action. Second, the government's obligation is to provide for what is best for its people, thus the only way to evaluate the legitimacy or justness of a governmental action is to evaluate its effects on the welfare of society. Third, individual claims of justice inherently conflict, making it impossible to judge the justness of an action on an individual basis. A) Organized crime has a negative effect on society. James Jacobs and Ellen Peters explain "labor racketeers are out for themselves and their organized crime cronies, not for the rank and file. They promote themselves and their cronies to leadership positions within the unions, draw excessive salaries, sell out the members' contractual rights, and loot the pension and welfare funds. They show no interest in organizing and no interest, of course, in union democracy. Labor idealists who wish to democratize and strengthen their unions cannot succeed in unions penetrated by organized crime. … the taint of organized crime may partly explain the failure of the labor movement in the second half of the twentieth century to attract the energy and idealism of the younger generations…The status that the labor racketeers derived from their positions or associations with unions translated into political power, … Unions provided endorsements, workers, and campaign contributions to political candidates. In return, the politicians looked the other way when the union bosses lined their own pockets." This has 3 impacts. 1. Corruption destroys unions because needed reforms are not able to be passed when the unions are controlled by crime rendering unions ineffectually. Thus it outweighs on magnitude because the destruction of unions and the rise of a corporate controlled economy will harm all people in the United States economically because unions are a necessary check on corporate growth and power. 2. Union members themselves are harmed because they lose valuable pensions and welfare funds that are necessary for them to remain economically competitive in society. The Northwest Labor Press(Feburary 2007) reports that 15.4 million Americans are members of a union, thus it outweighs on magnitude again because more people are directly affected by union corruption then by some possible flaws in plea bargaining. 3. Labor corruption outweighs on timeframe because individual rights abuses take longer to filter through the criminal justice system than economic abuses. B) Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is neccesary to combat labor racketeering. John Jeffries Jr and the Honorable John Gleeson explain "one characteristic of organized crime is that the most culpable and dangerous individuals rarely do the dirty work. Although the organization's leaders are ultimately responsible for its crimes, they typically deal through intermediaries and limit their own participation to behind-the-scenes control and guidance…their guilt usually cannot be proved by the testimony of victims or eyewitnesses or by forensic evidence. And they never confess…successful prosecution of organized crime leaders requires the use of accomplice testimony. It is therefore enormously important to federal prosecutors that a federal defendant can be convicted on the … testimony of an accomplice…The ability to rely solely on accomplice testimony, … allows federal prosecutors to bring charges in cases that are not so strong." Thus plea bargain in exchange for testimony is the only way to take down criminal organizations and solve for the harms in subpoint A, which is necessary to ensuring the maximation of social welfare and thus it is Just and you negate. Aff Case Off the value 1. Merge the values, just remember that because we are talking about governmental actions and we are not debating about a utopia, the round will be won by the side that is better able to provide Justice. Either side violates Justice in some way, the question is which does it least. This is confirmed by my opponents use of the criterion of maximization of rights, for they are evaluating whether or not justice is achieved through who protects more rights. Off the criterion 1. You prefer max. social welfare because a government deals with more than just rights claims. 2. Even if this is the criterion for the round you still negate because only the negative allows the government the tools to combat organized crime. Organized crime violates far more rights than any rights violations if you negate Off Contention 1 subpt A 1. Cross apply observation. It is impossible for innocent individuals to plea bargain FOR TESTIMONY because the only way they will have anything to testify about in another trial is if they were somehow involved in the crime. 2. It does not remove any rights from an individual, they still retain the right to a trial, it is their choice not to exercise that right Off Contention 1 subpt B 1. Cross apply the observation 2. Any rights violation that occurred was an error of the prison or judicial system, not a result of PB, let alone PB 4 T. 3. It is only one example, so the negative still outweighs on a magnitude level by providing law enforcement the ability to deal with organized crime. Off Contention 2 subpt A 1. There is no reason why the retributivist model is a Just form of punishment 2. There is no warrant in the evidence for why plea bargaining for testimony is unjust 3. TURN: If it is a categorical imperative to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, we ought use plea bargaining for testimony because it allows us to punish both the individual testifying and individuals they are testifying against. It would be unjust to ignore a tool that would allow us to punish more individuals 4. There is no impact to maximizing rights. Off Contention 2 subpt B Cross-apply arguments above Off Contention 3 subpt A 1. There is no evidence presented why a more efficient system is not a more Just one if it is better able to give individuals their due, if a system with PB 4 T protects more rights than one without it, it is Just and you negate 2. The evidence presented makes unwarranted assertions about overcharging and prosecutorial misconduct, without a warrant to back up those claims they are irrelevant, unimpacted, and meaningless 3. TURN: the evidence itself says the courts would grind to a halt without plea bargaining, which means only the negative can maintain a working legal system and only the negative can maximize rights, and you negate. Off Contention 3 subpt B 1. The evidence assumes flexibility is the goal of plea bargaining and that that is why it is Just. That is an unwarranted assertion. A lawless system would do a far worse job of protecting rights, and there is no evidence here as to how that would actually be more efficient, or for why flexibility=efficiency. 2. Flexibility is important, it is nearly impossible to develop rules for every possible contingency, so allowing a certain degree of flexibility is important for the system to function. That is not the same thing as having no legal system at all. 3. The entire piece of evidence has no warrant, it is simply an assertion