Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining for testimony is unjust.

Firstly, thank you, pmagyar, for taking this debate. I see you are familiar with LD form, and I will enjoy debating with you in this structured form immensely. As a road map for the reader, I will first summarize and analyze the sole contention of my opp., move on to rebut my opp. points on my case, then finish off with a values debate, responding off the Value and Criterion we have each set and contested. Everyone ready? Okay, here it goes: (Timer : 'beep') I Affirm: Opp. Negates My opp. uses the arg. of plea bargaining is necessary for demolishing organized crime. He uses Jacobs, Peters, to exemplify the seriousness of organized crime, and specifies "labor racketeers", those who defile the labor unions and "use" them. He says the only way to stop these criminals are plea bargains, which help indict and convict other 'shills' through their testimony. This is my opp.'s sole con., about how the use of PB is great in magnitude to stop organized crime, like labor racketttering. Now, I will refute-- Refutation of Con. I-- Now, as a def., I give white collar crime : A white collar crime is a non-violent act involving deception, typically committed by a business person or public official. http://www.lawyershop.com... I urge you to look at the link, for it will clearly define my arg. Part of the def. is that whote collar crime consists of racketeering: the extortion of money by force or a pattern of criminal activity committed to further the interests of a criminal syndicate. (Same Link) Now, if racketeering, which is what the organized crime my opp. is looking at, a form of white collar crime. Then, by reason, I will be looking at the con. as white collar crime (I will abbr. as WCC) because the utilization of a high profile union for criminal purposes of to further a criminal organization, is most certainly a def. of WCC. WHITE-COLLAR CRIME DOESN'T JUSTIFY PLEA BARGAINS Now to Justify this arg., I will place three cards, which shall show why PB cannot work, in three diff. ways. 1. TESTIMONY GAINED FROM PLEA BARGAINING IS UNRELIABLE SK/A09.01) Steve Maich, MACLEAN'S, July 9, 2007, p. 60, Online, INFOTRAC, Expanded Academic ASAP. 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. "The problem is, many of the laws these people are being prosecuted under are vague, and are not understood to be breaches of the law. Then the prosecutor comes along and says, I'm going to press charges and put you in the slammer--and in the United States, because of our sentencing savagery in such cases, that means forever and ever--unless, that is, you agree to incriminate yourself and whoever it is I really want to nail--whether that's Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling or whoever." This quote shows that accomplices may rat out members not part of the syndicate, in order to receive the victuals of life in a 'facility'. Also, the prosecutor may be after a certain person, who may be innocent, but because a shady accomplice incriminates that person, he is automatically suspected. w/ out a trial, the innocent can be charged an convicted, by the word of a dealer who just wants to not hit the slammer. 2. THE TESTIFIER MAY BE MORE GUILTY THAN HIS TARGET SK/A09.02) Ellen S. Podgor [Professor of Law, Georgia State U.], CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, February 2002, Online, LEXIS-NEXIS, p. 808. Particularly apparent is that in the white-collar context it is possible to have two contenders for cooperator status and the rightful or less culpable recipient may not be the one who ultimately receives the cooperation benefits. The accomplice may incriminate a member, who may be a lower rank. Thus, as an ex., the boss may sell out a new member, when the member is not as culpable as the boss. This shows injustice, in how PB can lead to lesser sentences for more culpable criminals. 3. WHITE-COLLAR CONVICTIONS LACK DETERRENCE VALUE SK/A09.03) Jamie L. Gustafson [Suffolk U. Law School], SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2007, Online, LEXIS-NEXIS, p. 688. Most judges and prosecutors recognize the utilitarian theory as the purpose of white-collar crime punishment. The problem with the utilitarian justification, however, is that empirical evidence of its effectiveness is inconclusive. The utilitarian argument of specific deterrence is problematic because corporate officers are unlikely candidates for recidivism. By definition, specific or special deterrence is "a goal of a specific conviction and sentence to dissuade the offender from committing crimes in the future." It is unlikely that a WCC criminal can 'atone' for his/her crimes in WCC. PB utilizes a reward system, which can tell a criminal, specifically those who control syndicates, like in WCC, that they could incriminate to get out faster. Thus, every crime they commit, they know they can get out through the PB system. In conclusion, my arg. to my opp. con., stopping organized crime does not necessarily mean PB is neccesary, for the criminals incriminate improperly, which you have even stated in your speech, "And they never confess.." There is no evidence in your card stated how PB can cause accomplice incrimination. There is always the chance of corruption in the system. that a crime boss may, in fact, get a lowly member out so they can walk free (releasing the most guilty to roam the streets.) and that WCC criminals may not even recidivise after their jailing, they may come back to WCC, as my card shows. Thus, my opp. con. falls, and you should start to vote affirmative. The magnitude of threat deserves a greater pun., not of PB, which utilizes flaws, as shown, but by a fair and legal system, which can incriminate and sends members to jail in a categorical way. Onto refuting my AFF case arg. (I will use the format of I, A, B, II, A, B, etc.) I. The word testimony could mean many things. it could induce a meaning of testifying on the court. The testifying could entail SELF-GUILT, OT INCRIMINATION. Testimony is not limited to convicting others, it could be convicting yourself. So, my opp. uses his kritik to cut off my con. I. while clearly, the innocent may be testifying AGAINST THEMSELVES (FOR THE DEF. OF TESTIMONY GO TO: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Thus, my opp. says my con. does not appeal to the resolution, while I have so shown that it does. My opp. also says that my sub-B does not relate to PB, however, the fact that ROBERT WAS FORCED TO PLEAD GUILTY, OR ELSE HE WOULD BE IN JAIL LONGER AWAITING THE TRIAL, shows the mighty influence of PB. PB can influence so greatly, that it can be used as a threat, giving longer jail time for the innocent, and no jail for the guilty pleaders who are innocent. At least, not yet. II. For my II., my opp. states I have not shown Retributivism as a JUST form of Pun. However, I have given this to show how PB cannot work in A CERTAIN FORM OF PUNISHMENT. I have shown that retribution is not used in PB, and that it could become hypocritical when PB is used. The notion of 'eye for an eye' goes back centuries, and it is a standard form of Justice. Also, my opp. does not understand Categorical Imperative. It is the fact that the ends must justify the means. (quality in action, a form of retribution), thus, the fact that criminals can get a lesser sentence than usual cannot give the means to the ends. The warrant showing PB, therefore, IS THAT IT IS HYPOCRITICAL TO RETRIBUTION FOR THE CRIMINAL DOES NOT GET HIS DUE OF A MAXIMUM PRISON SENTENCE.