In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

Definition Debate: You define "just" as "the punishment of wrongdoing". This does nothing whatsoever to imply treatment of innocents. Indeed, it excludes any handling of innocence. By the strict literal interpretation of your definition, it doesn't matter what happens to innocents. I define just as seeking punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all. My definition supercedes yours because it specifically makes provisions for the treatment of innocents. I'm not really defining "just", I'm merely labeling the action as just. If you want to argue fairness being equal to justice, you must give me your definition of fair. I will refute then it. Defense of my Contentions: I -Justice Department: The mission statement of the justice department says what the people are due. Since I define Justice as giving each their due, it is just to give them their due (what the Justice Dep. promises them). -You selectively apply part of my definition so it mirrors use. See above to see how this is wrong. Plea bargaining doesn't ensure fair and impartial administration of justice by not giving them a proper trial. -Your argument concerning the right to pursuit of happiness is flawed unless you were to say that prison is unjust because confining someone interferes with someone's right to the pursuit of happiness. (you also apply the right to life in this argument-same refutation applies.) TURNING your argument, the right to the pursuit of happiness of the victim is infringed upon the criminal who get's a lesser sentence. They're locked up in the first place to prevent them from violating other's rights. -You claim that not very many innocents are convicted, and then you offer a stat. If you had read the whole article, you would see that it deplores the innacuracy of this stat, and places the innocent conviction rate as being much more promenent withing the system. "the true rate of wrongful convictions may be closer to ten percent than to one-half of one percent. " http://caught.net... -You don't even address the issue of coercion. When people are coerced, they are robbed of their autonomy. II -You basically state that we need to bribe the criminal into providing testimony. This assumes that plea bargaining is worth testifying for (disproven in contention III) and that it's worth compromising the integrity of the courts. Since Contention III disproves the first premise, I will continue to the second. -You claim that Bobby needs an incentive to testify against his fellow gang members. This incentive can be provided through a subpoena. -If we allow criminals a reduced sentence for any purpose other than that they no longer pose a threat to society, we are undermining the function of the courts: to put social contract breakers in a place where they do no more harm. -Your statements also imply that testimony is necessary to convict. This is not the case. Almost no jury in the world would convict a man based solely on testimony. Other evidence is needed. If a testimony is needed to convict a man, then there is probably not much strong evidence against him, and without proof we cannot be sure of his guilt. -This contention just illustrates that people are given different punishments for the same crime. This violates all notions of fairness, and to support it would undermine your own definition of justice. To award punishment differently on extraneous factors such as who the defendent knew or what they knew totally violates proportionality. This also creates further problems (see above). III I claim that testimony is not worth bargaining for in the first place due to it's inaccuracy, which is only compounded by the brotherly loyalty that my opponent claims exists. -You claim that the study is flawed because it involves the testifier picking someone out of a lineup. You just claim this isn't the case, but give no supporting evidence. You assume that anyone who testifies against someone else is part of that criminal organization, but plea bargaining for testimony is not only used when convicting members of organization. For example, prosecutors could offer a car their a reduced sentence to identify a murderer in court before a jury. -In your refutation of my second contention you stated that the criminals in organization have a sense of loyalty. Chances are, if you can only get a testimony through bribing a criminal, they are the only person available to tell what went on. As the only people who know what really happened, they are at liberty to embellish the tale however they feel without fearing retribution from the court. -As the point proven by the stat still stands (testimony is frequently inaccurate) and my opponent points out that criminals feel a sense of loyalty towards one another, we must consider the two points in tandem. Testimony is often false even when it's given without incentive, and the people giving the testimony don't really want to convict those that they're testifying against. IIII -"If a person is innocent, chances are they won't admit to a crime they didn't commit." They will admit their guilt if the coercion (which you didn't refute) that is in effect convinces them that their case is unwinnable. They're just going with what they (incorrectly) perceive is their best interest. -Incentivizing IS unfair, because both sides cannot do it in this instance. Giving someone a reduced sentence is akin to a bribe. The system discourages bribery because it inherently maligns the legal system by providing untruth and unfair advantages to whichever side abandons morality. This is why subpoenas were developed. -You use an example where a ruling is overturn after they've been convicted and served time. For example, in the instance you've provided, irreprable harm was done to the defendent before the desicion was overturned. To due irreprable harm to an innocent in neither giving them their due nor being fair. -Prosecutors offer plea bargains because they are less likely to be overturned. If an innocent is found guilty through plea bargaining, it is less likely to be overturned. You make the claim that I haven't proven plea bargaining to be unjust because as long as guilty people get their punishment, justice is served. This is not in accordance with my definition, because it doesn't give them their due. -They are due their full prison sentence unless they are no longer a threat. They are not due a lesser sentence because they provide information (as I have proven above). -We also must remember innocents. In order for plea bargaining to be just, it must not only seek punishment for those who are guilty, but it also must administer a fair and impartial punishment. As for the final arguments you sneak in towards the end: "PB let's us convict more criminals". Wrong. PB let's you convict more PEOPLE (innocents as well as guilty). As I've stated above, testimony isn't even a primary tool used to convict. It's unneccesary, and often innaccurate. The testimony obtained through PB can convict innocents. "PB let's people pursue their inalienable rights" I've addressed this above, but I want to refute it specifically. Just because prison makes people unhappy doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. The inalienable right is the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself. Just because we make don't people happy it doesn't mean we don't allow them to pursue happiness. ANALOGY: You're given the right to walk, just not the right to walk all over other people. With all that said, I feel that my opponent has posed some very valid arguments. However, he has let a few of my own arguments go unchallenged, and has extended no points whatsoever as of this post. I will continue to refute his points and address voting issues in the next round. If neccessary, I will offer further argument towards word definition.