Plea Bargaining Ought to be Abolished in the United States Criminal Justice System

I agree to meet my opponents framework of consequentialism, but my own case reaches the framework better than my opponents. Firstly, my opponent argued court clog for his first contention. As I have stated in my second contention, third subpoint, plea bargaining is the main reason court clog is even thought of. The plea bargaining process forces police to have a mandatory minimum to arrests. Now, police arrest millions annually for a fracture of the major crimes. With the abolition of plea bargaining, the consequences are only good. Secondly, my opponent brought up the example of Connecticut's ban on plea bargaining, which resulted in massive case back clog. My opponent chooses to rely on the outcome of 1 event, when the abolition of plea bargaining will make a difference on a global level. I bring up the example of the Alaska ban on plea bargaining. When this ban took place, courts did not, in fact, get backed up. In fact, court back log decreased dramatically. My opponent's court clog argument falls, as the consequences of abolishing plea bargaining positively outways the consequences of not abolishing. My opponent argued about the innocence problem for his second contention. They stated that the amount of innocent convictions would, in deed, rise, even though the majority of all convictions in the plea bargain system (82%) are of innocent convictions. As I have previously stated, since 95% of all cases are solved with plea bargaining, it is undoubtedly the result of plea bargaining. Once again, the consequences of abolishing plea bargain outway my opponents. My opponent's third consisted of the plea bargaining system "Solving More Crimes". My opponent gave the example of Mr. Gravino. Once again, my opponent has chosen to see one event when there have been thousands in this world. Yes, the arrest and turning of Gravino was a major event. One. One major event. He gave another example, but still, these two examples don't justify for keeping plea bargaining system, mainly because there are more negative consequences in the plea bargaining process than positive effects. As I stated in my second subpoint of my second contention, guilty people are the only people who gain advantages in the plea bargaining process. What is happening is that guilty people get a shorter sentence, all in the while as innocent people are going to jail. And these innocents that take plea deals are not always helped. I bring up the example of Erma Faye Stewart, a single African-American mother of two who was arrested at age 30 in a drug sweep in Hearne, Tex. in 2000. In jail, with no one to care for her two young children, she began to panic. Though she maintained her innocence, her court appointed lawyer told her to plead guilty. Ms. Stewart spent a month in jail, and then relented to a plea. She was sentenced to 10 years" probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. Upon her release, Ms. Stewart was saddled with a felony record; she was destitute, barred from food stamps and evicted from public housing. Once they were homeless, Ms. Stewart"s children were taken away and placed in foster care. In the end, she lost everything even though she took the deal. Plea bargaining is unfair, especially with it's consequences. My opponents third contention falls. My opponent next talks about plea bargaining helping victims, and they gave the example of a victim going to trial to testify against a rapist and reliving the experience. My opponent is offering to basically do plea bargaining for only rapists, then. There are more crimes in this world, like theft, or manslaughter. If my opponent chooses to focus on rapists, then his argument immediately falls. I bring up the argument that rapists abuse pleas. Records show that in 2008 only 38% of rape cases won a conviction for rape itself. Alternative convictions come because of a plea bargain, where rape charge is dropped after a defendant offers to plead guilty to a lesser offence. The sentence will be lower, the man will be out sooner, and the victim may also get less or even no compensation. Would you rather testify in a trial to get someone who physically and mentally disturbed you, or would you rather have that person back on the streets, ready to strike again? The consequences outway, once again. Now, To My Own Case Starting at my first contention, my opponent must prove that Prosecutors do not have all the power, as well as I must prove that they do, and I have done just that. My opponent has failed to argue against the evidence shown that prosecutors are in charge of the defendant's life. He, instead, chose to argue against a smaller portion of my argument, which was me fighting against the mandatory minimum sentence. He argued that judges are able to waive any plea bargains, but as I have stated in my second subpoint, prosecutors have discretion that is LARGELY unreviewable by judges. He then talks about reforms solving this issue. I counter this by providing this definition of abolish - "To Completely Do Away With", meaning that reforms do not follow the resolution and my opponent's option of reform is impossible, according to the topic. My opponent chooses to process accuracy with efficiency, not with quality. In my plea bargaining process, 82% of all cases are of innocent convictions. Now, plea bargains don't take long to happen, but that is 82% of all plea bargains (which are 95% of all cases) being innocent people. I do not see how this shows justice or fairness in the criminal justice system. My opponent also chose to ignore the third number in my argument, which was 7,500. 7,500 wrongful convictions, and 95% being from plea bargaining. That is 7,125 convictions coming from the plea bargaining process, and that is a very rough estimate. Where is the accuracy when 82% of all plea bargains are of innocent pleas? In my second attention, my opponent attempted to say that trials have a higher chance of error than plea bargains. Tell me how he proves this without just stating his opinion? I have proven that 82% of all plea bargains are of innocent defendants. That means my opponent must prove that trials have 83 or higher innocent convictions, which he has not. I have also already proven that plea bargains are the reason for court clog, and abolishing them will not lead to a back clog of trials, as shown by the alaska ban. And thus, I end my case, proving that the affirmative should win this debate. (and for clarification, the affirmation is a male, not female.)