Resolved: plea bargaining is systematicly unjust

I will begin by reinforcing my own points and then refuting my opponents. C1: Plea Bargaining goes against Procedural Justice Protocol Many amendments endowed by our bill of rights combat the principals of plea bargaining, such as the right to an impartial jury, cross examination of states witness ext. I am not arguing that these rights deem plea bargaining unconstitutional, I am simply pointing out that our founding fathers established these rights for a reason. They recognized how an idealogic court system would work therefore they established such rights to combat the very principals that make up modern plea bargaining. The fathers of our nation established our courts for a reason and they DID NOT design such a specific system of trials to allow prosecutors to cut corners with plea bargains. C2: Weakens criminal Justice To address my opponents rebuttal; even if a criminal who admits to their crimes deserves a lower sentence, we must realize that this concept is not upheld with plea bargaining. When a criminal takes a bargain, it is most certainly a strategy of nickels and dimes. The defendant is pealing guilty to a LESSER crime simply to elude charges to a harsher crime that they did in fact commit. In addition to Bhansali, I personally know multiple individuals who have used this strategy in court. They are not admitting to their crimes, they are simply hiding behind smaller ones, and when this happens, we have unpunished criminals, being let out before their time. Justice must be carried out to its fullest potential in our court system. C3: Innocent convictions Alford pleas are a tragic reality in our court system. We have to look at this process through the eyes of someone such as Alford. A difference in the experience and skill between your attorney and the prosecutor can in fact result in a choice of ether death or unjust conviction. But even if your not stuck between such a large rock and hard place, we must recognize that prosecutors are illusionists in the fabrication of words. Even if a defendant is giving up his or her rights in a plea bargain, they might not always be doing this willingly. They could be intimidated by the system or their attorney may not make their rights particularly clear. But a prosecutor will always have the unfair advantage of better speaking skills which grant them the ability to "inform" a defendant of their rights, without actually allowing the defendant to comprehend them. In such instances, the defendant will in fact be compelled to incriminate them self, thus deeming the justice system broken. In regards to my opponents points, 1a: This argument is irrelevant because we are not disputing the financial convenience of plea bargaining, we are arguing the systematic justification of it. 1b&1c: My opponent stated himself that plea bargaining results in shortened sentences. Although this may result in lower prison and trial expenses, the negation fails to realize that justice must be carried out to its fullest potential, and cutting sentences in this system is cutting corners in justice. Systematic justice should not have a price, and we should NEVER sacrifice this justice, in the name of saving money and prison space. 2a: I have already refuted this point in my case reinforcement above. 2b: Trials are much more fair and bureaucratic then bargains. The presence of an entire court encourages much better justice then bargaining. 3: This argument simply supports my side because in our justice system we must value quality over quantity. Even if we can attain testimony through bargaining, it is at the expense of a lowered sentence (as confirmed by my opponent). So what if we have two people in jail instead of one? Justice must be carried out to its fullest potential, and even with more criminals in jail, their sentences are much shorter because of the bargain, with means they will be back on the streets all the sooner. The amount of time sentenced to a criminal is determined by legislation, and this legislation was meant to be solid and uncompromised. Justice is absolute, and we must never fail to uphold it to this standard in our justice system. For these reasons I would like to urge the audience to vote strongly in the affirmation of this resolution.