Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

I will avoid the use of value and value criterion. I feel it's unnecessary in this case. So, because I don't have one I will not attack my opponents because it may be unfair (unless he wants me to). I probably should have clarified this one term- Testimony. Testimony can be defined as -a solemn statement made under oath. -an assertion offering firsthand authentication of a fact -something that serves as evidence wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn My opponent fails to realize, you can testify against yourself. The simple "I'm guilty, I did it" is testimony when you're being prosecuted. This said, plea barganing in exchange for testimony can be against yourself. Onto the meat of his case: 1) My opponent is under the misconceived notion that plea barganing eliminates criminals and that's why it's the best thing. There are two fallacious realizations of this statement. He fails to realize that it also creates big criminals. Quite counterproductive I might add, and it makes it void. Criminals don't start out as "Big Fish," they start as little fish getting off easy on crimes and losing respect for the judicial system. So, as long as they think they're putting big fish in jails, they're creating them the same way. Laziness should NOT be used in our judicial systems. These people should be out doing their jobs oppose to looking for a cop-out/fast way out. The second realization is that criminals lie. We are using the scum of the earth that have nothing to look forward to but jail time, to get "honest" and "truthful" testimonies. If my opponent does ot also concede that this entices people to lie then he is just putting up the "front" for the debate. Consider the case of Robert H. - an unidentified man whose case was first described in a 1994 paper for the University of Chicago Law Review by Albert Alschuler and Andrew Deiss. According to the authors, Robert spent six months in the early 1990s in an Atlanta jail without any formal charges before meeting with a public defender. On the day she met him, she told him he'd been charged with a felony, but if he pleaded guilty he could go home that day because of the time he'd already served. If he pleaded innocent, he'd be kept in custody for at least another year awaiting trial. Not surprisingly, Robert pleaded guilty. Only later did authorities realize that due to a bureaucratic error, he'd been mistaken for someone else and should never have been arrested, let alone convicted. If Robert H. could be strong-armed into bearing false witness against himself, defence lawyers ask, why should we believe that someone like David Radler, choosing between the threat of life in a U.S. prison or 29 months in a cushy Canadian facility, wouldn't opt to bear false witness against someone else? These bargains are especially dangerous in white-collar cases, Langbein says, because formerly successful executives face an overwhelming temptation to tell prosecutors exactly what they want to hear. "What it does is defeat the age-old wisdom that led us to divide the charging and investigative function on one hand from our determinative and sentencing functions," Langbein says. "What's happened is the prosecutor has combined all those functions in one set of hands: he is the investigative officer, the prosecutorial officer, the determinative officer and the sentencing officer." Police, judge and jury in one incredibly powerful office. 2) "Plea bargaining works by threat, and it goes like this: 'Oh, you want to exercise your constitutional right to a jury trial? Please be our guest. But understand that if you exercise that right we will punish you much more severely,' " he says. "In effect, that means we are punishing you twice. Once for what you did and once for having the temerity to exercise your right to face a jury."~John Langbein, a professor of law and legal history at Yale. To Langbein and other critics, the gap in sentences handed to those who co-operate with prosecutors, versus those who maintain their innocence and go to trial, illustrates a form of coercion that underlies practically every serious prosecution in Canada and the U.S. Perhaps the most famous example unfolded in the late 1970s, in the case of Paul Lewis Hayes, a small-time American fraudster and petty criminal. Hayes already had two felony convictions on his record when he was caught forging a cheque for US$88.30. Prosecutors told Hayes he would get a five-year prison term if he pleaded guilty, but if he chose to go to trial, he would be indicted under Kentucky's Habitual Criminal Act, which carried a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Hayes refused to accept a five-year term for an $88-crime. He was convicted as a habitual offender and sentenced to life in prison. Ask yourself, would it have been ok to give someone 5 years if they deserved life, or life if all they deserved was 5 years? Clearly, the unjust application of plea barganing is exposed for what it really is, unlawful bribery. 3) This is simply not truue. Justic isn't increased by reducing the strain. It's compromised for. Onto his other arguments: >>>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. --- You fail to realize that in order to get evidence of this happening, you have to look in the places it's happening. Being that it isn't specified DOES NOT mean I can't use it, that means there's nothing stopping me from using it. Being that there is no invisible society to turn towards in the context of the resolution, we must use real life. Not only must we use real life, we are to expand on more than just one place. This is very topical. >>>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. ---That's what my ENTIRE case is about. Have you not found the many reasons I've given as to why it is wrong to do this? >>>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. It makes perfect sense. You don't think, in getting a murderer for a crime, they have multiple suspects? I didn't make this up, nor did I have someone else create this. I got this from a lawyer himself. Moreover you said "Two persons cannot be convicted for the same murder. This creates reasonable doubt." According to which society? I see you've found the need to use certain society rules, when you said it was untopical when I wanted to do it... Thank you for taking a moment out of your busy schedule and doing this. You explained to me your situation, and I'm very impressed by your ability to fall through with your plans. Thank you "Is it a wise decision to trade the liberties and rights offered by our constitutions for the sake of expediency?" Sources: 1) http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com... 2) http://www.dreamessays.com... 3) http://wiki.idebate.org... 4) http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...