Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

Although my opponent has not presented a value and criterion, I will do so to better organize my arguments. Value: Justice, defined by Aristotle as "giving each his [or her] due." The importance of justice to the resolution is self-evident. Criterion: Utilitarianism, defined by Bentham as "the greatest good for the greatest number." It is evident that absolute justice cannot be achieved. However, the proper course of action is to provide the maximum amount of justice to the maximum number of individuals. I concur with my opponent that the definitions are fairly obvious. However, please note that the resolution concerns only cases where testimony was given in exchange for a lighter sentence. 1. Plea bargaining eliminates the threat of major criminals. When plea bargaining occurs in exchange for testimony, it is in order to convict another of a more significant offense. The sentence of a minor criminal is lessened, so that one at a higher level may be convicted. It is obvious that higher level criminals are of greater detriment to society than their lesser counterparts. They cause a greater amount of crime to be perpetrated within a society. Therefore, their conviction is of greater benefit. Because plea bargaining lessens the danger to society, justice is achieved for each individual within that society. 2. Plea bargaining guarantees a conviction. This eliminates the potential for an acquittal, therefore preventing crime. Again, this reduces the danger to society, resulting in greater justice. 3. Plea bargains reduce the pressure placed upon judicial institutions and prisons. Both facilities are placed under pressures which prevent adequate attention from being given to each case. This inherently detracts from the justice that the system may achieve. By reducing the strain, justice is increased. "CONTENTION 1-My first Contention is that Plea Bargaining undermines our idealistic criminal program." This argument is totally irrelevant. The American "presumed innocent until proven guilty" concept does not apply, as we are not debating U.S. policy. Note that the text of the resolution does not include "In the United States". Aristotle's principle of justice holds the punishment of the guilty to be as important as the protection of the innocent. Therefore, this contention, being specific to American and British law, is inapplicable. "CONTENTION 2- BRIBERY IS UNJUST IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE" My opponent argues that a lighter sentence should not be given in order to achieve societal benefit. Yet, he fails to warrant this. Why is it wrong to do this? The greatest societal benefit ought to be supported. This achieves the most justice for the greatest number. "CONTENTION 3- PLEA BARAINING IS COERCION AND ENTICES PEOPLE TO LIE." First of all, this example makes no sense whatsoever. Two persons cannot be convicted for the same murder. This creates reasonable doubt, and as a result, neither brother would be convicted, if both testified. Further, plea bargains are made in exchange for testimony. They are not given for specific, incriminating testimony, or for a conviction. In fact, the legal penalty for lying is quite high. Thanks for posting.