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

1.As a brief roadmap I will do the following: 1.Extend my unrefuted arguments 2. Refute my opponent's arguments 3. Defend my own case 4. Ask my crossfire questions Extensions Silence is concession, especially since my opponent had approximately 2,000 more characters to write with Extend my examination of the resolution that "the pro's responsibility is simply to show that plea bargaining has ssome sort of a detrimental effect. If it shows this, then it wins the round." Also Extend "since all of these are undermining effects the con must prove all these points wrong or you default pro." My opponent has made a grave tactical error by not challenging these observations Okay, now I just have to extend one point to win because my opponent did not challenge my interpretation. I will extend the following My entire 2nd Contention that Plea bargaining leads to arbitrariness. There was no rebuttal to this so it is extended entirely. I showed how there is little judicial involvement and that this leads to discrimination. This alone is sufficient reason to affirm. Part of my Contention 1, subpoint A The prosecutor can withhold evidence that can exonerate a defendant. This also links into the fact that prosecutors have too much power. Also, my opponent cannot try to define this out of the round because this is done with legal plea bargains. Innocents A.) My opponent provided evidence which shows that innocents are being convicted through plea bargaining. The piece about trials is irrelevant because pro doesn't have to advocate a ban. B.) Dowden, who I cited in crossfire, says that prosecutors try multiple people for the same crime and get multiple pleas for the same crime. Obviously innocents are being convicted. At this point, just based upon my extensions, I have won the round. But, just in case you don't buy that, I will move on to my opponent's case. Refutation of my opponent's case Contention One: Plea bargaining balances the Criminal Justice System financially and prevents an overflow of criminal trials. Without plea bargaining, the system would be inhibited by far too many cases. The Criminal Justice System relies on plea bargaining, and without it, it would suffer. I have 4 responses to this 1.) According to Albert Alschuler, professor of law at the University of Colorado, plea bargaining does not conserve resources or time because plea bargaining itself uses many resources which are unjustifiable in a supposedly overburdened system 2.) Delay tactics are frequently used by prosecutors in order to induce a plea because defendants are put in jail before the bargain. This is called pretrial confinement. The longer a defendant stays in pretrial confinement, which is indefinite, the more likely they will plea bargain. 3.) Alschuler furthers by saying that, when plea bargaining has been banned, especially in Alaska, there has been an increase in efficiency. 4.) Even if you don't buy the above, it is not the pro's job to advocate a ban necessarily, so dependency cannot be looked to My opponent has done his/her own analysis on a bunch of irrelevant statistics. They do not know if the studies were using the same definitions, ect. So, they cannot be combined or looked to. Even if you don't buy that, my opponent has not prove that the U.S. can't put more resources into the criminal justice system so they are irrelevant. Contention Two: Plea bargaining has legal procedures that yield its constitutionality. I have 3 responses to that 1.) My opponent assumes that something that is constitutional cannot be undermining. They have not provided why this is so. 2.) My opponent assumes that because coercion is illegal, it doesn't exist. However, I showed you that it does because prosecutors get multiple pleas to the same crime and pretrial confinement 3.) Something can be a necessary evil so to speak. This furthers why this point is irrelevant. Defense of my Case As I showed previously, coercion can exist even in a "legal" plea bargain. If he wants to call pretrial confinement and multiple people pleading guilty to the same thing not coercion oh well. These elements exist and are certainly not good. He can't define these points away. It is naive to think that coercion does not exist because it is illegal. My opponent must show that all plea bargains with any form of coercion are rendered null and void by the judge. Consider, on average, judges only spend approximately 60 - 90 seconds on each plea bargain, I doubt this happens. They have tried to dodge and define their way out of it instead of confronting it, which is a mistake for them. So coercion stands. My opponent has not shown that innocents are not put to jail. My opponent, in fact, proved that it does. They mention stats about trials but that is irrelevant because the resolution is about plea bargains not trial. So, the point about innocents stands. In order for my opponent's refutation of my reasonable doubt to stand, my opponent must prove that coercion does not exist, yet I proved it does. My opponent quotes some irrelevant statistics about the criminal justice system, and deduces that plea bargaining can't be undermined if the criminal justice system is working. However, this is the Fallacy of Division because, just because the whole is working, doesn't mean the parts are. Again, the statistics don't link to plea bargaining so they are irrelevant. In response to my cross fire response my opponent quotes more irrelevant statistics. My opponent's statistics only regard cases which lead to jail time which are not the majority of cases. So, this part is irrelevant. Also, my opponent observes that sentences are reduced by 900%. This greatly reduces the severity of punishment, which is important in deterrence of crime, according to Valerie Wright, PHD. So, turn this point because plea bargaining undermines deterrence. Finally, I would like to review my opponent's letters at the end of their speech. A.) My first contention, in fact, stands B.) Coercion can exist, this is a blipy response C.) Innocents are being convicted. Trials are irrelevant D.) See Coercion, or whatever word you want to call it E.) It actually doesn't. Germany gets by fine without it. And, this doesn't matter F.) Plea bargaining has an undermining effect. I will again stress that my extensions mean the only possible vote is pro. Crossfire Questions 1.) Why do you dodge coercion? 2.) Even if it is not considered coercion, why is pretrial confinement and charging and getting pleas from two people for the same crime not bad? 3.) What study did Chief Justice Berger make/cite to arrive at his conclusion? 4.) Why is his assertion valid? 5.) Why can't we divert more resources to the criminal justice system?