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

I will begin by discussing the merits and weaknesses of my opponents case, and then move to the construction of my own. First and foremost, my definition does not exclude the rights of innocents as I clearly say it is the punishment of wrongdoing. An innocent person has done no wrongdoing, therefore should not receive punishment. You argue that innocent people often receive punishment and I will refute that at a later time. If your definition of just is the way to receive justice, then it is not a definition of just. It is what is necessary in order for something to be just. You still have not sufficiently defined the word just, and have not shown me or those who will judge this why mine should not be accepted. The word just is very easily defined as being fair. It is not illogical in any way, and should be accepted because it is a common definition of this word. It is what most people think of when they think of just. Secondly, in the paragraph before your first contention, you mention inalienable rights. I'm sure we both agree that these are the most important rights, as they are inherent in every man, woman, and child. These rights, defined by Thomas Jefferson, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I say to you today that a plea bargain allows for life and the pursuit of happiness at the very most, and may also include liberty. Now for your first contention. You say that the Justice Department's mission statement is also your definition for just. This cannot be. A mission statement is not a definition. It is a plan of action, or possibly even a goal to be reached. A definition is the description of a word. The two cannot coincide. You can refer to my earlier analysis of your definition above. Another argument on your first contention is that it turns what you have already said. You say "The purpose of plea bargaining is to skip the whole process of finding justice, and instead to JUST ALLOT PUNISHMENT. " (emphasis added) When we look to your definition of just, you say ". .. punishment of those guilty of unlawful behavior. .. " If plea bargaining gets a punishment, then it fits your definition of just. So you either must agree with my definition of just, and throw yours out; or you must agree that a plea bargain is just. The very next sentence says "If the only reason someone testifies against themselves or someone else is to reduce their own punishment, the possibility of their own innocence is not reduced. " I say that if someone is trying to reduce their own punishment, then they are pursuing their right to the pursuit of happiness. We can all agree that punishment is not a very pleasing thing, and therefore, the lessening of a punishment is a pleasing thing. Also, if you talk to someone who has been to jail, they will tell you that life "on the inside" is not a real life. It pales in comparison to that of a normal life. So therefore a plea bargain again is giving them the right to life. Life is not just the physical aspect of breathing and having a heartbeat. It is quality of life. So pursuing a better quality of life is attaining your right to life. You say that plea bargaining is foregoing their right to a trial. But their right to a trial is not as important of a right as those inalienable rights. Inalienable rights will always outweigh in importance other rights. So if by plea bargaining, they attain their inalienable rights, all other rights that might not have been attained don't matter. This is where you bring up innocent people being convicted wrongly. According to the Innocence Project, which is by no means a "supportive" group on my behalf, says that only .5 percent of those convicted are wrongly convicted. And this includes those who have retrials due to such things as Brady violations and things of that nature. The source is . http://caught.net.... the number of people that actually get convicted wrongly is miniscule. Your second contention is all about this scenario you present. You say that Bobby gets lesser of a sentence for giving up some of his fellow gang members. If these gang members have done something wrong, they should be convicted of it. If Bobby's testimony helps provide justice to those who need to be convicted, then he should do that. Now Bobby probably has a sense of brotherhood with his fellow gang members. This means he won't want to give them up. In order for him to give them up, he would need some sort of incentive. This incentive is a lesser sentence. He is still punished, and guilty of wrongdoing. More justice is served with a plea bargain. Bobby is still punished, and so are other people who deserve to be punished. Your third contention's main piece of evidence is the fact that not many people could tell you who was the one interrogating them. This is a fallacy. The people who are plea bargaining, know the people they are testifying against. It is not a stranger they have met for the first time. They do not have to pick them out of a lineup. All they have to do is say what happened. If the people being interrogated couldn't tell you what they were interrogated about, maybe then this information would prove your point. But it doesn't. It just shows that people can't pick out someone they just met for the first time. The people they are testifying against aren't acquaintances. Your last contention "of great importance. " The fact that the prosecution can "bribe" someone isn't unjust. There are different tools used by both sides, and this is just one of the tools used by the prosecution. If a person is innocent, chances are likely that they won't admit to a crime they didn't commit. Yes, it may happen. But there are many times that a person has their case overturned because the prosecution got a witness from them. Take the example of the Ron Williamson case, or the Dennis Fritz case. Both of these men were falsely accused of raping and murdering a young woman. Ron, while being interviewed, told of a dream where he supposedly saw himself killing this young lady. The prosecution used that to convict him, but it was later overturned. So this last contention still hasn't proven how it is bad. My last argument on your case is that you have never proven how plea bargaining is unjust. If a punishment is given to someone who has committed a wrongdoing, then according to your definition, it is just. Now I haven't really presented a case, but I have shown you by negating your points how a plea bargain is in fact fair. It allows for more criminals to be convicted, and it allows the person doing the plea bargaining to pursue their inalienable rights. Thank you, and good luck in the future rounds.