Resolved: In the United States, Plea Bargaining undermines the criminal justcie system.

I affirm the resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system. First, I would like to examine the wording of the resolution. It specifically says "undermine" Thus the pro does not have to advocate a ban. The pro's responsibility is simply to show that plea bargaining has some sort of a detrimental effect. If it shows this, then it wins the round. With this in mind, the pro offers a counter definition to "undermine". Princeton wordnet defines undermine as "to weaken" Therefore, if the pro shows that plea bargaining weakens any part of the Criminal Justice System, it wins the round. Contention 1: Plea bargaining dilutes the standard of truth Sub Point A) Innocents are convicted because of the lack of evidence It is common knowledge that less evidence is used in a plea bargain than a trial. And, according to Jeff Palmer, writing in the criminal law journal, that evidence is not reviewed adequately by judges. In fact, he states that judges spend only approximately 60-90 seconds looking over the evidence. This is clearly inadequate. At this point, it is only a formality. It is impossible for the judge to determine whether the evidence is sufficient. This creates means that it is assumed that the defendant is guilty and the prosecutor has gathered enough evidence. Now, the prosecutor is likely unconcerned whether the defendant is innocent because he or she just wants to get through as many cases as possible for financial rewards and helping his or her reputation. Combine this with the fact that, in a plea bargain, a prosecutor can withhold evidence which would exonerate a defendant, then the chances that an innocent would be pressed into a bargain are extremely high. Although exact statistics on the amount of innocents convicted through plea bargaining are unknown, plea bargaining has a much more lax evidential standard and this can lead to an innocent person being coerced into a plea bargain. Sub Point B.) The lower amount leads to less truth and less justice In a plea bargain, again, less evidence is presented. This means that there is a much lower chance that it will be the right person or the right crime. In America, we are supposed to be "innocent until proved guilty". However, according to crimeandfederalism.com, there have been several instances in which the coerced, guilty plea was pretty much the only evidence used, and innocents were convicted. Contention 2: Plea bargaining leads to arbitrariness. In plea bargaining, the prosecutor is able to decide the fate of the defendant, essentially without the involvement of the judge and absolutely without a jury. The judge is essentially a non-factor because he or she is not present while the deal is being hammered out and because the judge, again, usually only spends approximately 60 - 90 seconds reviewing the evidence. Also, the judge has strong incentives to not overturn a plea bargain, even if he/she thinks the defendant is innocent because the defendant has already pleaded guilty and will likely be convicted in trial anyway regardless of his or her innocence because of the guilty plea. Essentially, once the defendant is coerced into plea bargaining, they are unable to escape without consequences. It is easy to imagine that one prosecutor is more likely to be biased than an entire jury and judge, who is trained to be impartial. Thus, plea bargaining opens the criminal justice system up to discrimination. In review, the affirmative has show that plea bargaining is certainly a mechanism for convicting innocents. Also, it leads to a diluted standard of truth, undermining America's core values of "innocent until proved guilty" and proved "beyond reasonable doubt". Finally, it leads to easy possible discrimination by a prosecutor, since all of these are undermining effects the con must prove all these points wrong or you default pro. Thank you Because this is to be done in Public Forum Debate Style, I assume that I will ask my crossfire questions now and my opponent will answer and ask in round 2 1.) Are you putting a price on justice with your efficiency argument? 2.) Do you agree that people should be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt? 3.) Although the Supreme Court ruled coercion illegal, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist so why is this point relevant? 4.) Why is your contention 2, subpoint A relevant? Something can be Constitutional and not undermining? 5.) Do you think your entire Contention 2, but especially subpoint B is a little defensive? 6.) Where in your case do you supply a warrant for either of your subpoints in you contention 2?