Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

I thank resolutionsmasher for his prompt posting. I must make a note about my opponent's reply. Other than his first paragraph and opening sentences, my opponent has blatantly copied every word of his response from the "arguments" section of a debate website [1]. I understand he has been busy recently, but this plagiarism has caused him to ignore entire sections of my opening arguments. I will address the relevant rebuttals and move on to those Con arguments I can discern. ::Rebuttals:: 1. Unfair to Victims and Society "According to one writer [1] the U.S. only drops the higher charge in place of a smaller conviction 2.56% of the time. The remaining majority of plea bargaining is only a reduction of the sentence attatched to the original crime." My opponent's first rebuttal serves only to support my original argument. As I stated previously, the injustice to the victim stems from the criminal's ability to positively influence their legal standing through an exchange of service. This action relates in no way to the victim or the original crime, thus offering no fitting justice for those who have been wronged. Any reduction in punishment whatsoever for criminals as a result of testimony circumvents the consequences they would rightly face otherwise and acts as an unwarranted aid to those who least deserve it. "Plea bargains in exchange testimony help convict the worst criminals and protect society… Plea bargaining lowers the risk of acquittal and freed criminals." This line of reason errs on multiple levels. First, it implies that pleas in exchange for testimony are the only way of obtaining information. It falls to law enforcement and the legal system to produce necessary evidence, not to ill-intentioned criminals who are receiving undue benefits despite illegal activity. Second, it assumes that testimony provided is reliable. Testimony produced in exchange for a plea is incredibly suspect and likely to be fabricated in an attempt to lessen jail time. Finally, it ignores the reality that pleas allow criminals to return to the streets significantly sooner than they would otherwise. A system cannot boast about convicting criminals while simultaneously allowing them back into circulation more quickly. 2. Innocents are Endangered "Plea bargaining may be a way out for innocent people who are framed - they can get a lighter sentence than they would standing in front of a jury." My opponent concedes my second argument, which states that pleas guarantee undue punishments for innocent defendants. The fact that pleas offer these individuals reduced sentences does not eliminate the fact that pleas result in the false testimony against and punishment of innocents. Furthermore, given that these individuals are innocent, they would have no testimony to provide in exchange for their own pleas, making Con's point irrelevant. 3. Legally Suspicious Con has ignored my arguments about constitutionality and bribery. Trials by jury have become increasingly rare due to the extreme frequency of plea bargains, with roughly 90-95% of cases ending in pleas [2]. The ease with which pleas can be delivered has trumped the defendants' rights within our legal system. Furthermore, the exchange of testimony for pleas accounts to nothing more than bribery and my opponent has not said otherwise. These arguments carry over to the next round. My opponent's sole argument concerning defendant's rights involved measures used to ensure fair pleas. Unfortunately, Con paints as false picture; in reality, defendants are coerced into abandoning their rights through fear, intimidation, and ignorance [3]. The judicial measures Con mentions occur after the arrangement of the plea and are irrelevant to the discussion of defendants' rights. ::Con's Case:: • "Bob steals $300 from a convenience store…He has information that will certainly lead to the conviction of a serial killer at large." Con has presented a convenient and unrealistic scenario that does nothing to negate the resolution. Benefiting the first criminal stands as an injustice to his victims and society at large, and the very offer of the plea is akin to a legal bribe. The fact that his testimony may incriminate another does nothing to lessen the initial injustices. Furthermore, real cases involve no guarantee that testimony will be truthful or that it will lead to a conviction. Con cannot use the ends to justify the means, especially when the ends are uncertain and the means are wholly and widely unjust. • "Abuses do not justify banning plea bargaining in exchange for testimony." I have not suggested the banning of plea bargaining, simply the realization that the practice is unjust for victims, society, defendants, and our legal system at large. Seeing as Con has not offered a single unblemished explanation of the fairness of plea bargains, all there is to discuss at this point are its abuses. I apologize if I missed additional points by my opponent. I ask that he please separate them from his rebuttals to improve clarity for both me and the readers. ::Closing:: Sadly, Con failed to address the majority of my arguments. He acknowledges that pleas allow criminals to positively influence their sentences, which robs victims of their expected justice. He ignores the harm pleas do to innocents, who are inevitably accused and punished through plea bargaining. He also ignores the legal murkiness of plea bargains, which are non-constitutional and equivalent to bribery. The injustices of pleas in exchange for testimony are obvious and numerous, and we've yet to hear otherwise. ::References:: 1. http://wiki.idebate.org... 2. http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com... 3. http://www.thefreelibrary.com...