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

My Definition of Justice is from the teaching of Aristotle. Your definition of Justice is faulty as it fails to take into account the rights of innocents. As far as my definition of the word "just" goes, I'm saying that the adjective is achieved through that verbalization. That is, a fair and impartial administration of justice for all achieves justice. This Debate focuses on determining whether or not plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is just. The objective for the aff is to prove that it is just; the objective for the Con is to prove that it is unjust. The Social Contract is formed for the protection of rights. The Obligation of the US with respect to justice is to protect the rights of it's people. This protection occurs within the Justice system, and extends to the society outside the system. The Justice system apprehends breakers of the social contract and removes them from a societal context where they can cause more harm to innocent citizens. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and endowed to inalienable rights. I. The function of our justice system is to determine the guilty from the innocent, and to appropriate punishment. The very mission statement of the US Justice Department is stated to "seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans". Plea Bargaining is defined as an arrangement between the defendant and the prosecution. As such, it does not involve the Department of Justice and thereby is no longer confined it's mission statement, or the general purpose of the Justice system. The purpose of plea bargaining is to skip the whole process of finding justice, and instead to just allot punishment. If the only reason someone testifies against themselves or someone else is to reduce their own punishment, the possibility of their own innocence is not reduced. The option of plea bargaining encourages them to forego their right to a trial by their peers and the rights implied by that trial. In many cases, the defendant is coerced. G. Douglas writes: The most serious concern with plea bargaining pertains to the possible coercion of innocent defendants to plead guilty. The unilateral power of the state to determine the sanctions for different offenses can provide a broad range of options for prosecutors to overcharge or threaten to pursue the most severe penalty if the defendant goes to trial. The harsh penalties associated with conviction at trial provide the prosecutor with significant leverage to persuade defendants to plead guilty. In some cases, this may result in innocent defendants being faced with a choice where the cost of pleading guilty outweighs the risks of going to trial. Risk-averse defendants will accept the state's offer and plead guilty. The incentives inherent in plea bargaining, therefore, create an increased risk of innocent defendants receiving punishment. The coercion is common and undeniable: Gifford writes: The most important reason innocents plead guilty is due to the sentencing differential. Defendents who reject Plea Bargains are treated substantially harsher. The coercion comes from two fronts. A: The defendant's lawyer receives a flat rate for the trial, and is therefore likely to act in hers own best interests by making a trail as short as possible. If she can receive hers pay without even trying a case, it stands to reason that she can do more cases and thereby make more money. B: The Prosecutor can manipulate a defendants into plea bargaining even when plea bargaining does not suit the best interests of the defendant. A prosecutor could bluff her way into convincing the defendant that her case is unwinable through preying on the ignorance of the defendant in tandem with the coercion that originates from the defendant's lawyer. Because a prosecutor can use illegally obtained evidence to bluff their case a defendent is cheated out of their autonomy and into plea bargaining. A second unseen impact causes further rights to be violated. Because legal and illegal evidence are both used in plea bargaining, there is no longer an disincentive to obtain illegal evidence. As a result of this, the right to privacy will never be respected by the police force. II. Under the current system, the following scenario is possible: Bobby is a gang member who robs a gas station. Suzy works alone and robs a gas station. Because Bobby is able to testify against his gang members, he receives a lesser sentence than Suzy even though they committed the same crime. Justice is being decided over extraneous factors such as who the defendant knew or did not know. Not only is this unjust in itself but it also rewards criminals for associating and organizing with others. This gives an incentive for organized crime. If a criminal testifies against their fellow criminal, they are absolved or at least part of their punishment.. Since the purpose of the a punishment is to reflect upon the transgression, offering them a way our of the punishment would undermine the criminal element. Furthermore, it suggests that Bobby's crime is not as serious as Suzy's. If a criminal chooses to testify against his co-conspiritors, then this shortens his sentence. However, this is unjust in the principle that not everyone has a co-conspiritoy to testify against. Indeed, we allow criminals that associate with other criminals an avenue of clemency that we do not allow criminals that act alone. This is neither fair, nor is this practice impartial. III. Because of false testimony, Plea Bargaining in the root cause of flagrant injustices. Subpoint A: Criminals have a strong incentive to provide testimony regardless of it's validity. The criminal has interest in himself, not justice. Therefor he will make up whatever is necessary to reduce his sentence. This is unique to plea bargaining because no other circumstances would give the witness an incentive to lie. Subpoint B: This is magnified by the fact that even when attempting to tell the truth, a testifier is frequently inaccurate. A Fort Bragg study conducted by Andy Morgan showed that "Despite being alone in a room with the interrogator who tormented them for over half an hour, the soldiers were not very good at picking the interrogator out of a live lineup with only 26 percent accuracy.". Although these individuals wanted to tell the truth, as a majority they were unable. This questions testimony as resource to be bargained for. Finally the impacts of both subpoints are devastating. Frequently innocents will be sent to prison, while truly guilty individuals run free. IIII. My final contention is of great importance: By allowing individuals to plea bargain in exchange for testimony, you are providing an incentive. The defense cannot offer incentives to others for testimony. So by allowing the prosecution to do this, you are creating a monopoly on bribery that rests only in the hands of the prosecutor. This forever stacks the deck in favor of the prosecutor.