Resolved: In the United States, Plea Bargaining undermines the criminal justcie system.

My opponents case is lacking in factuality and additionally contains several gaps in the logic which I will point out throughout this rebuttal. Looking at the top of my opponent's case, they offer a definition of undermine that they claim to be given by Princeton Wordnet. However, they have omitted several critical elements that the definition includes, such as "destroy property or hinder normal operations". Even with their definition however, we can agree therefore, that as the negative I must prove that the criminal justice system is not weakened by plea bargaining. In my opponent's first contention, they state that judges disregard evidence in plea bargains and pass them with less formality than a trial. However, as determined in Machibroda v. The United States, there are two main criteria for passing a plea bargain. One, the defendant, prosecution, and judge must all agree to the plea bargain, and, accoding to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 Section b Subsection 2, the court and the defendant must ensure that the plea was not coerced, or it is void. Second, all three aforementioned parties must agree that the plea bargain was made a) voluntarily, b) knowingly, and c) with a factual basis. Parts a and b, along with the Supreme Court Case Boykin v. Alabama, eliminate coercion as an option. With the inclusion of part c, my opponent's entire first contention becomes irrelevant. My opponent has tried to offer refutations to this point, accusing me of twisting and contriving the wording to my advantage. However, the resolution states: "Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system". Plea bargaining, by definition, cannot be coerced, or it is void, and no longer a plea bargain. Therefore, the only cases that are truly plea bargains and can be used in this round, are those that are not coerced. Also in my opponent's case, they complain that with plea bargain innocent are put into jail at an unsettling frequency. My refutation to this is simply, that is incorrect. Plea bargaining results in a lower false conviction rate than jury trials. According to the CATO Institute in partnership with the Innocence Project, jury trials have a false conviction rate of 0.5-0.6%. After a plea bargain, however, they find that the false conviction rate is actually only 0.25%, more than a 50% reduction in the frequency of false convictions. My opponent furthermore says that the defendants rights such as being "innocent until proven guilty" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt" are violated through a plea bargain. However, I would once again like to point out that plea bargains must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and with a factual basis. Therefore, any waiving of rights is done voluntarily, which leads me to my next point: it is a BARGAIN. By entering a plea bargain, both sides will give a little and gain a little. The defendant is not losing his rights, nor are they violated. He is intentionally and voluntarily waiving his rights for a reduction in the severity of the sentence. My opponent has criticized my case for trying to put a price on justice. However, as I have said, we have a just society, between the 70% conviction rate and a 1:450 police officer to citizen ratio. As they have condoned my efficiency argument, they have clearly ignored just how vital plea bargaining is. According to Michael Kinlsey of Harvard Law, 95% of criminal convictions are settled by plea bargaining. According to former Chief Justice Warren Burger, "even a 10% reduction in plea bargains would double the number of trials" in the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system relies on plea bargaining, and without it, would indubitably collapse. Therefore, without plea bargaining, the system would be weakened, the opposite of that which my opponent is trying to prove. In the last crossfire, I asked my opponent who benefitted and who suffered from a plea bargain. He replied that the prosecutor benefits while the defendant suffers. However, let us weigh the effects of a plea bargain. On the prosecution, their job is sped and eased through a plea bargain. The judge benefits as they too have their job sped, and as my opponent has said the judge is usually overburdened. The defendant, in contrary to what my opponent has said, benefits out of the plea bargain. As I have said, according to Candace McCoy, law professor at the University of New York, reports that the average length of a prison term after a jury trial is 212.6 months, nearly 18 years. After a plea bargain, that is lowered, on average, to 23.6 months, almost 2 years. If a plea bargain allows the defendant to reduce his conviction by 900%, he definitely benefits. This may raise concern that the public is harmed from this reduction in charge. However, criminals that pose a danger or risk cannot engage in a plea bargain. These include sex offenders and drunk drivers. As I have stated, justice is defined by Princeton University as "what is legally or ethically right or proper or fitting". The system, therefore, is intact to serve society in the greatest way possible. All of society benefits through plea bargaining, and therefore the criminal justice system is doing its job, and clearly not weakening or undermining it. In conclusion, I have proven that: a) My opponent's first contention is not only irrelevant but untrue. b) A plea bargain cannot be coerced, or it cannot be classified as a plea bargain. c) The innocent are protected better through plea bargaining than through a jury trial. d) Rights are not violated, rather they are knowingly waived. e) The criminal justice system relies on plea bargaining for its survival. f) Society as a whole benefits from the existence of plea bargaining. For these reasons, my opponent's case fails to surpass my own, and you must vote for CON in this debate. Thank you.