Topic #29: Plea Bargaining should be Banned. (Attempt 2)

I'll go down the flow and name the voting issues as they appear. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE TRIAL BY JURY IS NOT A RIGHT BUT A REQUIREMENT FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONSTITUTION I think you've consistently missed what this phrase was intending; that people CANNOT be STRIPPED of the right to a trial by jury. I'd like to take this argument Ad Absurdum Let's pretend we have a really good person here. He stole food for his family. He was caught, and charged with theft. Feeling bad, he admits his crime, and asks for a direct sentence; he doesn't want to go to trial. (No PB, he just admitted guilt.) Are you really saying that the Constitution MANDATES this man go to trial, even when he admits being guilty? That the Framers intended EVERY SINGLE CHARGE to be taken to trial? It doesn't make sense. ANYTHING, DOWN TO A MERE SUGGESTION, FROM ANYONE OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL IS UNLAWFUL BY THE CONSTITUTION. Proof for this would be nice. I think you're talking about COERCION. Coercion is strictly banned from the Courts, and if they find out about ANY of it, they throw the entire case out. Otherwise, they're just informing them of their legal options. In fact, the Supreme Court found PBing to actually be an EXTENSION of the 6th Amendment. IF YOU WISHED TO ARGUE ON RIGHT AND WRONG YOU SHOULD HAVE MADE IT A SEPARATE ARGUMENT, AND NOT TIED IT INTO THE LAW I actually specifically stated in my second contention that YOU were taking a decidedly legal stance, while I felt morality was a second issue. You really haven't pointed out any contradictions, and I showed morality as a factor, so please weigh this as CON in voting issues. THE JURY MAKES THE VERDICT, NOT THE LAWYERS But no one is contesting the guilt! The lawyers aren't making a verdict; a verdict is a judgment. There's no verdict to be had; all involved parties here agree there IS guilt. Why would you judge something that doesn't need to be judged? Lets flip this. Lets say both the Prosecution and Defense agree that the Defense is innocent (ie, the Prosecution found more evidence to exonerate the Defense after they charged them). Do they still have to go to trial too? No! Because no one is contesting the verdict. LIKE IN THE REAL COURTS, WHERE VERDICTS OF GUILTY AND NON-GUILTY ARE DETERMINED BY HOW WELL A LAWYER DEFENDED THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE LAW. First, I think your premise is mistaken – juries don't judge cases based on ‘who lawyered better' they judge cases based on what the truth is. I understand that in reality, our opinions don't matter, but for the Round we're supposed to pretend we believe in our position. When I go to post my argument, I see "I am ‘against' this topic." So the analogy within the parameters of the debate applies. IF YOU WERE TO SAY I SHOULD ADVANCE, THE ARGUMENT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE JUDGED Why would it need to be judged if I conceded? You haven't explained this, and I disagree; its just a de facto win for you, not something still to be judged. SINCE THEY ARE NOT DOING ALL WITHIN THEIR ABILITY TO PROVE THEIR CLIENT ARE INNOCENT, WHICH ULTIMATELY IS THE GOAL EVERY LAWYER SHOULD BE TRYING TO ATTAIN Actually, lawyers "are required to vigorously represent their client, to the best of their ability, and to use every legal tool at their disposal to do so." If their client is outright clearly guilty, then merely protesting innocence is not best representing the client. Often PB is the best way to go – the Supreme Court agrees that "the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of "Assistance of Counsel" to mean effective assistance, which seems to entail a modicum of bargaining and negotiation." THEY REVISED IT BECAUSE THEY ADMITTED HE WAS GOADED, BUT KEPT THE GUILTY PLEA AS THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS LEGITIMATE. That makes no sense at all, and is factually false. If they thought he was goaded, why would they keep the guilty plea? WHETHER HE KNEW HE WAS INNOCENT IS NOT THE CASE, BUT WHAT HE KNEW WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN, BEING THEY WOULD PROVE HIM GUILTY AND STILL SEND HIM TO JAIL, EVEN IF HE MAINTAINED A PLEA OF NON-GUILTY. As for the Alford case, the man WAS guilty – so he knew that he would get the death penalty if they went to trial. The reason they ‘would prove him guilty' is because he WAS guilty. ALSO, YOU'VE IGNORED THE PART IN THE HAYES TRIAL WHERE THE LAWYERS AND POLICE THREATENED HIM INTO TAKING A PB RATHER THAN GOING INTO TRIAL. They never threatened him! You've provided no evidence that they did either. The reason behind his conviction was he was guilty! Guilt IS material to the debate, because he knowingly broke the law and took his chances. He threw a tantrum about going to jail for 5 years for stealing 88 dollars, and because of this got much longer under a repeat offenders law. He was not goaded at all – he was pissed. This also ties into my Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines argument; it may seem very harsh that he got 5 years for 88 dollars. If the judge felt he was reformed or that he wouldn't do it again, he could've given him probation or something. However, because of the harsh law, the judge had to hand down a life sentence. PBing goes around overly harsh restrictions, and allows judges to do what they're supposed to do; judge. Because of this, I ask you to weigh this voting issue NEG as well. I'd also like to address the rehabilitation aspect for drug addicts. I don't think you understand what Mandatory Guidelines are: IF THE JUDGE AND JURY DEEM REHABILITATION A SUITABLE PUNISHMENT, FINE. That's the thing; its not fine. The judge is FORCED to rule in a certain way – he cannot exercise the judicial discretion that has been so critical to our nation historically. IF THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JUDGES, JURIES, AND COURT ROOMS TO FACILITATE ALL THESE CASES THEN THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: GET MORE. If only we could. But the nation's $9,351,498,901,526 debt gets in the way of that. It would be nice if we could just ‘get more' for education, Medicare or the Courts, but as we exist, we simply cannot ‘just get more'. I provided analysis that says that PBing is essential, where my opponent provides none. Weigh this NEG "PBING CAN'T VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION IF THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED FOR CASES THAT USE IT" RIGHT? WRONG. While I agree with you that the judges ARE human, I would submit to you that the number of critically made bad decisions could be counted on one hand, and all of the examples you gave have been rectified. Biased Justices may have ruled badly on slavery, yes. But different cases, different justices, different circumstances, different attorneys, and different time periods over decades have all consistently come to one conclusion: PBing is Constitutional. The fact that there are SO MANY cases consistently ruling in favor of PBing is a testament to its Constitutionality. There was controversy over slavery. Over civil rights. Here, you are the only one protesting. And you're not even attacking the logic of the cases, which constitutes a dropped argument. I'd like to put my opponent's arguments in perspective. He claims that PBing, which is far and wide used around the country, is unconstitutional. Then what are we doing here debating it? Why isn't there a riot in the streets? When the Supreme Court found "separate but equal" in schools to be unconstitutional, the will of the Courts was enforced. When some schools decided they didn't want to obey, the President took almost immediate action and sent National Guard soldiers to enforce the Constitution. It is the basic law of our land – it must be adhered to completely. Yet for some reason, PBing has magically escaped the eyes of the public. There are no riots in the streets. There is no deployment of troops. I ask you to look globally; we've taken every action, be it inputting troops from the national guard, to going to war over slavery to preserve the Constitution. Yet here, there is no such action. Logic dictates a neg vote.