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

=== Pro Case === 1) Trials enhance justice a) Trials are a necessary condition for justice Con points out that PB "is associated with higher levels of perceived fairness among defendants than is going to trial". The perception of defendants is not a valid measure of justice. If, as Con claims, the majority of defendants are actually guilty, of course they will support PB! It means they can significantly reduce their expected punishment. Con also says "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". But I'm not arguing constitutional law here. I'm arguing under justice, which is philosophical. Trials are a necessary condition for justice because trials are a discovery process, where evidence and testimony are weighed to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Con's only argument against trials is that they are expensive, but this is a utilitarian argument. Again, maybe an "undermined" system is best, but its still undermined. b) Punishment must be decided in court Con thinks that because PB is subject to judicial review, that the punishments can still be just. How can they be just if the judge never investigates the guilt of the accused? They can't. Con also points out that the sentencing is not necessarily lighter. But the sentencing HAS to be lighter, or else no plaintiff would ever apply for a PB. Except people do apply for PBs and their sentences are empirically lower than otherwise [1]. 2) Plea bargaining is unjust a) PB is coercive Con writes that "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." Except no one can ever voluntarily wave their rights because plea bargaining is coercive. Individuals are threatened with larger sentences should they go to trial. This is a metaphorical gun-to-the-head. Con also writes that it is "demeaning" to suggest that adults don't understand the consequences of plea bargaining. I've never argued this... its a straw man. Con's concludes with his staple argument that people have a right to trial, but should be allowed to waive that right for a lesser sentence. This is a UTILITARIAN argument. Justice is concerned with giving each their due. If someone is innocent, justice requires that they be FOUND innocent and vice versa. b) PB replaces trials Plea bargaining does replace trials... Since trials are a necessary condition for justice, PB must undermine justice. c) Moral Hazard Con says people won't lie just to reduce their sentence because they'll get caught. They can only be caught in the face of contradicting evidence. But from hypothesis, crucial testimony is crucial BECAUSE there is no other evidence. So there is no way to catch liars in these big crime boss cases that proponents of PB romanticize. Additionally, the whole point of PB is that you never go to trial, so you would never investigate the relevant evidence that would show someone is giving false testimony. Furthermore, people aren't likely to lie about things that are easily falsifiable by evidence. They'll just lie about something else. Something they saw someone doing, or a phone call they had, etc. Even if you don't buy any of that, it still makes testimony suspect because it is obtained under pressure. This creates a moral hazard for the legal system, because prosecutors can bully defendants into giving false testimony. Anti-truth = anti-justice === Con Case == 1) Con goes on to apologize for the system. There's no need! Maybe this is the best possible system. But utilitarian arguments are totally irrelevant to this debate. All I have to do is prove that justice is undermined by PB. Maybe justice isn't as important as some other value. /shrug 2) Con points out that innocent people might still go to jail even if they have a trial. This is unfortunate, and why I have been saying all along that trials are a necessary, but insufficient condition for justice. No matter how bad trials actually are, PB is still an automatic prosecution mechanism that risks punishing innocent people. So even if trials are bad, PB is always less just because it has a 100% conviction rate. PB also allows criminals to get off with easier sentencing, which is unjust. 3) Con says "see above". I don't see where he's talking about. The point he was trying to make was that it makes life better for plaintiffs. Obviously this is another utilitarian argument, so you can ignore it. 4) Con says PB might be helpful in cases where this is insufficient evidence to convict murderers. But if there isn't enough evidence, it makes more sense to just go to trial and be found innocent... Con's reasoning is question begging too. He assumes that he can know someone is a murderer even though he's theorizing that there isn't enough evidence to know that in the first place. Con concludes that society might be kept safer if we use PB to run through a ton of cases. This is another utilitarian argument, so you can ignore it too. 5) The testimony gleaned via PB is done so under pressure. As such, its reliability is compromised. === Conclusion === Con has never attacked my value of justice, nor my framework. All I have to do is prove that justice is UNDERMINED by plea bargaining. His practical arguments are utilitarian, and don't matter. The debate is not "we ought to do away with PB". The debate is over whether PB is consistent with justice. PB replaces formal trials with an automatic conviction, usually at reduced sentence. Guilt is never established. The truly guilty get off with a lesser punishment, while the truly innocent are unjustly harmed. It also creates a systemic moral hazard because testimony gained via PB is coerced, and therefore unreliable. This false evidence leads to less justice in other cases. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...