plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.

President Ronald Reagan said with much political wisdom "Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." It's due to the freedom former president Reagan tried to urge through his words that I think we must negate the issue. I value liberty and more specifically the right to choice for one reason and personally disagree with the issue for another. My liberty argument will be the fact that we have the RIGHT to a trial. The term means you can waive your right to allow a choice, but the aff doesn't want to allow any kind of leniency due to this waiver. The reason I personally disagree with the topic is that I interned with a district court and I personally saw the court backlog that exists in this nation. Also trying to limit the debate to only innocent people when talking about the justice system is abusive to the neg because everyone wants to help the innocent and if we didn't take the guilty into account, then we wouldn't have prisons because there would be no guilty people. I will go off my opponents and add my own. Even if you the aff has the right to limit the debate, then hopefully I'll be able to refute the evidence given by his speech. Onto my first point of liberty, I would start by saying that the 6th amendment, specifically "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial," it says the keyword right. The difference between right and responsibility is the choice you get. My opponent opens an autocratic door with a responsibility to do things rather than a right to. That's why the right to vote means you go vote if that's your prerogative, or you can not vote. Even if that isn't the best option, you get to make that option. It also applies to this case law. ( I would like to note that even though this is my value, it also directly refutes his first arguement. My second point is the problem of court backlog. The courts can handle the workload of cases right now. Prost 15 (Sharon Prost, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ". We"re proud of the fact that we"re very current; we have virtually no backlog and are probably one of the most current appeals courts in the country, so we"d like to be able to keep that going. " Increasing the federal circuit court"s workload would hinder current courts ability to guarantee IP protection Kirk 06 " Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee; United States Senate "regarding the pending immigration reform legislation that would transfer jurisdiction over immigration appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We believe that such broadening of the Federal Circuit"s jurisdiction would seriously hinder the court"s ability to render high quality, timely decisions on patent appeals from district courts, and patent and trademark appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This runs directly counter to the present efforts of Congress to otherwise reform and improve this nation"s patent system. " IP innovation and IPR protection is key to the economy Bird, American Legislative Exchange Council, 12 " Tom Bird October 8, 2012, an intern for the International Relations Task Force. "Intellectual Property: The Innovation Economy"s Engine for Growth and Job Creation" "protecting IPR was vital to encourage invention, creativity, and innovation, and the U.S. has relied on ingenuity to drive our economy ever since! According to the World Intellectual Property Organization over one-fifth of all patents issued in 2006 were granted by the U.S. Patent Office, and the U.S. Chamber"s Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) found that over one-third of U.S. gross output originated from IP-centered companies and accounted for 74% of U.S. exports. " To explain what all this evidence says in a concise manner is courts can handle the current workload. The aff plan of getting rid of plea bargaining will cause a HUGE surge in cases that will distract them from handling patents. Not handling the patents will lead to an economic collapse because there is no innovation and invention in the United States. Onto the arguement that plea bargaining targets minorities are the fact that the aff's plan will actually hurt minorities, especially in the black community hugely. Alt fails. Their ontological framing of blackness dooms the alternative. Placing Blackness as oppositional denies it any existence independent of white supremacy and makes identity reliant on oppression Pinn 4 " Macalester College Professor of Religious Studies "ontological blackness"s strong ties to suffering and survival result in blackness being dependent on suffering, and as a result, social transformation brings into question what it means to be black and religious. Liberative outcomes ultimately force an identity crisis, a crisis of legitimation and utility. In Anderson"s words: Talk about liberation becomes hard to justify where freedom appears as nothing more than defiant self-assertion of a revolutionary racial consciousness that requires for its legitimacy the opposition of white racism. " What this piece of evidence says is that if we continue to focus a huge portion of policies on bridging the race gap, then the whole black identity is based on being targeted. If this were to happen then it would turn and magnify his minority arguement because people would believe that our black citizens would be complaining to complain rather than because there is a significant issue. To summarize my arguments 1. We need to allow a choice to be allowed rather then the autocratic door my aff opens my making the "responsibility" of trial rather than "right". 2. Courts can handle the workload now but if we add more to the problem, courts can't handle all of the patents they have to do. Without them going through patents, there will be drawbacks in innovation which leads to an economic collapse. 3. Him trying to help the minority ends up intwining the minority with oppression, making people believe there is no real racism issue. This lack of belief about the issue makes the problem even worse.