Plea Bargaining Ought to be Abolished in the United States Criminal Justice System

To go over my opponents framework, I continue to agree with the value of Consequentialism, meaning that the morality of a situation shall be judged by it's consequences. And with that, I affirm. Now, to the cases at hand. As I have already stated, Court Clog has been checked in the criminal justice system with the single claim in my first contention that the reason for the rise in arrest numbers is solely because of the Plea Bargaining process. My opponent has failed to mention this piece of evidence, which clearly states that because of Plea Bargaining, officers feel obliged to arrest millions of people annually. My opponent's Court Clog argument falls, since they do not connect to his value of Consequentialism. [. https://www.theatlantic.com... source for my C2 S3. ] Moving on, yes, I mistook national level for global level, but still, the impact does not change. My opponent chose to take one example in one state, when the ban on plea bargaining will affect more than one state, and he does not know the consequences of abolishing plea bargaining on a national level. My opponent's argument is contradictory to itself, so my argument still flows through. My opponent attempted to argue against my evidence about 82% of all plea bargains being of innocent defendants, but I do have the source, and the source being [. https://www.theatlantic.com... , and yes, I did forget to post my sources, my bad. ] Going over the 99.5% accuracy, it is showing how terrible the plea bargaining proccess is. They choose to measure accuracy by speed, and since most plea bargains are speedy, then they are accurate. The system is corrupt and it just shows how corrupt the system is. Even if we do take the 99.5% example, that will still lead to 7,500 wrongful convictions, which do not belong in the United States Justice System. My opponent rebut's my arguments to his own case by saying that logic is what determines the best outcome. Frankly, I will choose NOT to believe my opponent's "logic": perseeing that it is not factual and is merely opinionated. Firstly, he stated that it is common knowledge that prosecutors use plea bargains to secure information and evidence, but this can't be further than false. As I have stated before, prosecutors are in it to win, not to achieve what is righteous. They will do anything to win, including falsifying evidence, threatening the defendants, and straight out raising the defendant's punishment [. https://www.hrw.org... , and "The Plea: Interview John Langbein. "] My opponent stated that my evidence of Erma Faye Stewart was an appeal to emotion, and not logical at all. My example of Erma Faye Stewart was to show the negative effects on the plea bargaining process, just like my opponent's argument about Gravino. If my opponent chooses to make the statement that my argument of Erma Faye Stewart should be dropped, so shall my opponent's argument with Gravino. My opponent has stated that I have not provided evidence about only guilty people winning in the plea bargaining process, but if my opponent chooses to debate with logic and common sense, let us bring up common sense. As I have stated, in the Plea Bargaining process, two things can happen: a) Guilty people get a lesser sentence than they deserved, or b) innocents go to prison for crimes they did not commit. My opponent fails to see this on a common sense level, so let me put it in an evidence format: plea bargains work like this: those who are believed to be guilty and can provide inculpatory information can plead guilty for a lesser charge. Since, by definition, innocents do not possess such inculpatory information, they, by definition, automatically receive worse than their guilty counterparts [. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org... , this is evidence for C2. S2] To save time that I do not have, I will just make the statement that my opponent has chosen to make arguments of his own opinions and feelings, using HIS OWN logic instead of evidence and information to counter my own cases. He stated that 82% was an outrageous number: firstly, an opinion by my opponent, and secondly, an actual number, which shows how corrupt our system is with the plea bargaining process. The affirmative will rest their case, as I have PROVEN that plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States Criminal Justice System. (and yes, I know that I did not go over more of my opponent's rebuttal, but I do want to make sure I get the debate in on time, so please do not judge anything my opponent says after talking about guilties only benefit, as it will only be fair in the final judging. Opponent, if you don't follow this request, it is absolutely fine, since it is my own fault that I didn't manage my time properly.