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

I would also like to show how this debate is going to work. First round is cases. Second round is rebuttals. Third round is rebuttal/ optional cross examination. Final round is for final arguments/ rebuttal. I negate. Since the reciprocal burden for the round exists around proving PBT just/unjust, I value justice 1Derrida furthers, . No exercise of justice as law can be just unless there is a "fresh judgment. ". This "fresh judgment" can very well conform to a preexisting law, but for a decision to be just and responsible, it must, be both regulated and without regulation: it must conserve the law and also destroy it or suspend it enough to have to reinvent it in each case, rejustify it, each decision is different and requires an absolutely unique interpretation, which no existing, coded rule can or ought to guarantee absolutely. " "Justice in itself, outside or beyond law, is not deconstructible. No more than deconstruction itself, Deconstruction is justice. It is because law is constructible, and what's more, that it makes deconstruction possible. " Therefore, Justice is perpetual deconstruction in which precedents are constantly reevaluated. We use this definition because: 1) pre-fiat social benefits. It allows for societal benefits such as civil disobedience, which lets law be deconstructed and then made stronger, for instance, Martin Luther King Jr. , with civil rights protests. 2) This is a concrete definition that is centered on the ability to challenge ideas and is not subject to conflicting conceptions of due, allowing for consistency and clarity in debate. 3) Deals directly with the relation between justice and law, making it more applicable to the resolution. C: Reevaluation of Power Structures 3Foucault expands, "Disciplinary power, is exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility. It is the fact of being able always to be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection. holds them in a mechanism of objectification. In this space of domination, disciplinary power manifests its potency, essentially, by arranging objects. Reevaluation of power structures is crucial for deconstruction by its ability to dispute state and social precedents creating fresh judgments. Foucault tells us that power is exercised through arranging laws that create a precedent; therefore precedents create potentially oppressive control. For an action to be just, it must deconstruct oppressive precedents within power structures in order for them to be reevaluated and rebuilt with fresh judgments. My thesis is that Plea bargaining for testimony deconstructs oppressive precedents that prevent equal political discourse and consistent reevaluation making it just. Adam Cory explains the oppressive racial precedents in our legal system, "African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites, and Latinos at nearly double the rate. Minorities also face comparatively harsher charges on felony counts in trials. Juries add to these biases by including whether the defendant meets a stereotype when calculating guilt. The fact the matter is, our adversarial system widely embraces its majoritarian favoritism by setting procedures that rely on hired lawyers and a matter of guilt based on stereotype. " This results in bias punishment consequently oppressing racial minorities. These harsher convictions further oppress racial minorities with disenfranchisement laws. Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza explain, "Some form of felon disenfranchisement exists in 48 of the 50 states. 11 states disenfranchise some or all felons indefinitely. In many states, these laws were the product of explicit efforts to disenfranchise black voters after the Civil War. And even today, states with higher proportions of African Americans in their prison systems are far more likely to have strict laws disenfranchising felons. The net effect is to dilute African American voting strength. " These oppressive conditions occur with trials; however, Plea bargains for testimony are mainly used with racial minorities because they have knowledge of the crime world, allowing them to evade trial. Wesley Skogan warrants, "Organized crimes are usually acts of minorities. Minorities are most common in impoverished living conditions where their overwhelmingly the majority. These living arrangements instill insecurity in people since law enforcement is minimal with low funding and corrupt officials. of people seeking security. One way to regain a secure feeling is through gang membership. " In addition, well-off racial minorities will also be targeted since they could have knowledge of members of their family who are more likely to be a component in organized crimes. Skogan furthers, "In ghettos, individuals turn to organized crime because it's their only option for profit. Ghettos have high amounts of drug use and distribution, making the economic demand high. Systems of drug distribution trap individuals to a crime lifestyle since; with little law enforcement nothing checks this growth of crime. " This neglection of enforcement creates cycles of oppressive outcomes. Skogan explains, "Incentives for a citizen to involve oneself in politics is directly dependent on how much the politics involve and aid them. These problems are reaffirms notions that political structures only involve the well-off or ideal citizens and exclude minorities This creates a feeling of helplessness in these communities, making people distance themselves from political involvement out of spite and fear of further neglection. " This affect keeps these communities in a cycle of political oppression since incentives for a citizen to participate is minimal, giving minorities no ability to change their oppressive circumstances. With Plea bargaining for testimony it deconstructs these oppressive precedents in three ways making it just. First: Since more plea deals for testimony are with racial minorities, the decrease in sentencing acts as a procedure to favor minorities, deconstructing the oppressive majoritarian favored procedures as a precedent in our current legal system such as having better lawyers and racial biases, forcing reevaluations of legal procedures. Second: It deconstructs the oppressive racist precedent of disenfranchisement laws presented by the state, by giving a reduction in charges with the bargain, it makes less minorities qualify for disenfranchisement laws. This establishes equal ground of political recourse in the democratic sphere. Forcing reevaluations of disenfranchisement laws. Third: Plea bargains for testimony puts a rehabilitative calculus into punishment by including participation on sentencing. This shows defendants that the state values their inclusion in the political system making a goal to rehabilitate for future inclusion. Also, it gives individualized attention to each case, showing it's not the states incentive to neglect, but to help. The testimony gives defendants a chance to create positive discourse in society, giving inclusion. This deconstructs the precedent that the state neglects minorities which created psychological barriers that prevent citizenry involvement in political spheres. By having a judicial procedure outlining inclusion and giving aid instead of adding to notions of neglection and helplessness it gives more incentives for political involvement and forces reevaluations of government incentives in the eyes of the public. With more subjects involved in political spheres through incentives and equal opportunity, reevaluations of power structures will happen more quantitatively and consistently creating more deconstruction in state and social precedents. Thus you negate.