Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

First of all, the whole value/criterion debate is proving unnecessary. Suffice it to say, that both sides are attempting to achieve justice. The given definition of testimony is accepted. Con: 1. a. This "Big Fish" argument is in no way warranted. Arresting high-level criminals is of vast importance. b. Coercion does exist on a very small level. My opponents example is that of a single case, with very little impact. The positive implications, and necessity, of plea bargaining far outweigh these minor incidents. c. My opponent does nothing to negate the social benefit. 2. a. My point, being that plea bargaining guarantees a conviction, went totally unaddressed. My opponent merely restates his bribery and coercion points, which I'll address later. Extend this point, and its resultant societal benefit. 3. There was no refutation to my point. Currently, only 10 percent of case go to trial. "According to Department of Justice figures, roughly 90 per cent of criminal cases in the United States end in a guilty plea, the vast majority of which have been negotiated with prosecutors in return for a lesser charge, a lighter sentence, a more comfortable prison, or an agreement to testify against someone else. A 1997 Queen's University study found that plea bargaining in Canada is just as common, and works in much the same way." Maich, Steve. Macleans, 7/2007. Even with 10 percent of cases being tried, the court system is still strained by the amount of criminal cases. Our judicial system is not capable of handling 10 times the cases we do now, as would be the circumstance without plea bargaining. It simply could not function. Without a functioning system of justice, no justice can be established. Thus, plea bargaining is a practical necessity to achieve justice. Pro: 1. My opponent states that plea bargaining is unjust because it defies United States ideals. However, we can't look to the United States as a paragon of morality in this debate. Blackstone's principles, though the basis of U.S. law, are not the basis of justice. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution has no ground in this debate. Just because an act in unconstitutional in the U.S., it is not necessarily unjust. United States law cannot be used to determine if something is just, but can be used as an example, given its experience with plea bargaining. 2. My opponent has not stated why it is wrong to act in the greatest societal benefit. Plea bargaining is necessary for justice to be carried out, and creates societal benefit. My opponent must prove why we ought not support the greatest societal benefit. 3. Sir, your example was not taken from a lawyer, but instead, this Wikipedia-like site. http://wiki.idebate.org... It is merely logical to state that two individuals, independently accused of a crime, cannot both have committed it. If my opponent can cite a justice system which defies this logical principle, I shall stand corrected. You did not address the point that courts avoid creating an incentive to lie, e.g. not requiring specific incriminating statements, penalizing perjury. Furthermore, testimony against another composes a small fraction of plea bargained cases, so any coercion that exists is outweighed by the benefit and necessity of plea bargaining. Thank you for being so patient.