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

To Confirm, PublicForumG-d did post his response with the 24 hour time limit. We may now both proceed at our own convenience. The resolution, being that Plea Bargaining should be banned, is always my intention to prove, and I will do so by any legal means necessary. In fact, 'legal' will be a large part of this debate. On his General Example: True, citizens can waive their rights. They can choose to plead guilty on their own accords; however, the Government and Judiciary cannot allow Plea Bargaining as an open legal option. A citizen can do as they want with their rights, but law enforcement knowingly presenting that option is unconstitutional. Plea Bargaining is made just so that someone WILL give up their rights, and all legal staff knows this. If one is to give up their rights it should be out of their own accord, with no possible persuasion involved. That is exactly what Plea Bargaining is. On Ethics: Unfortunately, right and wrong are not the standards on legal practices. If that really were how the world worked there would be no legal system at all, or crime for that matter, as everyone would be happy neighbors. But as that unfortunately is not how things are we must work with what we have. The Judiciary knows this. It is not about proving right and wrong, but guilty and not guilty, regardless of whether they actually are. Perhaps not ideal, but its what we have. Because this is how things are, every person has the right, from O.J. to Mason, to prove their innocence. The constitution specifically sets up rules so that this will (not can) happen. On Helping The Law: If you re-read the text, it says ALL crimes SHALL be by Jury. The only exception is impeachment, and seeing as how there are only a handful of people who can be impeached, the rest HAVE to be judged by a jury. Regardless of if they have scruples or not, if they want to plead guilty they can, but it has to be done properly and they face the sentence made by the Jury, not by lawyers. Its not me being difficult, its the very laws in the constitution that say so. On the Fifth: I'm glad you brought this up. In the case of North Carolina vs Alford, Alford faced capital punishment for murder, but maintained a plea of innocent. However, before the end of the trial, he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, and was sentenced to 30 years. He then appealed saying that he was goaded on to accepting the plea bargain under the fear of the death penalty, and his guilty plea was reversed. The Supreme Court still maintained that his plea was valid, however, and kept the sentence. Although he didn't get off that is not the point. What matters is that he was psychologically manipulated to plea guilty by law enforcement, who undoubtedly by his claims, continued to press the fear of the death penalty. Although a court could have proven his guilt (it was inevitable anyway) he had said he was innocent (which he has every right to say), but was made to bare false witness against himself, which, despite the SC ruling, is unconstitutional. If it happened to him, there is no doubt that it has happened to countless others. Free, powerful, and intimidating men, pushing and pushing the consequences in the defendants face until they plead guilty, whether in their heart they think so or not. This means plea bargaining, and especially the process of getting to it, violates the Fifth, and thus more reasoning as to why it should be banned. On the 6th: As I said before, they cannot waive the jury. Law requires it. Next, you say in short 'if there is no evidence, why plead guilty'? Because they are made to. Another example is Hayes vs Kentucky. Hayes forged a check, and if convicted could get 2-10 years. He wanted to have a jury trial. Law Enforcement at first tried to nicely persuade him, but then admitted that if he did continue to pursue his right towards a jury trail they would find MORE laws to convict him on. They both did as they said they would. Hayes Pursued his right, and the court 'found' more evidence of more crimes and he was sentenced to life. So we see cases where defendants do want to have the trial, but are threatened to do otherwise, and rather than face these NEW consequences they will go with the presented plea bargain. So this is why. The law doesn't NEED evidence, as long as they call the shots. So they will push their weight around until they get what they want, being the quiet easy plea bargain. So we can see that with the mere option, corruptness ensues, and if it happened there, then there is no reason to doubt its happened elsewhere. So if they aren't psychologically pressured then they are forced. They have the right to rove they are innocent, yet MADE to believe they can't. All of this so that they can AVOID a trial. So still unconstitutional, and generally illegal. On Scared: Of course they tell you, but they in particularly emphasize why you SHOULD NOT pursue those rights. So while they are not technically being violated, they certainly are not fully being upheld. On Laws: If you look, you'll find that there is not one single state law in all 50 of them that says anything about plea-bargaining. Go ahead an try, I have. There is not a single law that says it is legal. However, there are several Founding Document laws that do indirectly state that it is illegal. So no State has invoked your 10th amendment. Plead Bargaining was birth SOLELY from legal practices, not the law. So while it technically doesn't exist, as I've shown by my three laws, every aspect of Plea Bargaining is illegal by violating Constitutional law. To incorporate, it is not officially made by either the judiciary or legislature, because it was never passed to be constitutional because it technically does not exist. However we know that it does, otherwise we would not be having this debate, and as such with my evidence it is clear that it is still illegal, whether or not it is tolerated. On Helping Sentencing Guidelines: What your talking about is romanticism. Ignoring reality and wishing for the best. But the best is not the same as the legal. If judges and juries feel rehabilitation is better on the advice of the lawyers than so be it, but it is not for lawyers to take the law into their own hands, ignoring the Judiciary system almost entirely. In fact, as I've shown, this action is illegal, as it violates Article III of the Constitution. So whether it is right or not, it is not legal and thus cannot be exercised in anyway (by that I mean by the lawyers behind the scenes. Juries can mandate rehabilitation if they want seeing as how that IS legal). On the Burden: You finally come to this, as I thought you would. Tediousness and onerousity are no more acceptable reasons for violating the law than simple ignorance of the law. In fact it is even worse as it takes place within a system whose express purpose is to UPHOLD the law. But with the evidence I've provided, we can clearly see that the Constitution REQUIRES trials by, and gives evidence saying that that right is requires and that no one can give a testimony that they do not wish to give. So this fact simply doesn't matter, as it is clearly illegal! So we can't accept this argument until we can find evidence that it is fully legal (which it's not), meaning that there are laws saying it is (which there are none) so that it doesn't violate the constitution (which it currently does. So until you find direct evidence that plea-bargaining does not contradict in anyway the Constitution, my premise stands, and thus proves the resolution.