In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system.

=== Pro Case === Framework 1) "Undermine", which Con defines as "To weaken or ruin by degrees". I don't have to prove plea bargaining should be abolished. I just have to prove it is hindering. Maybe an "undermined" system is the best we can do, but its still "undermined". 2) "Criminal Justice System" - USDOJ's mission statement reads: To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans [2]. The Pro chooses to affirm the value of justice defined as giving each their due. I don't have to prove this is the supreme value, but it must be satisfied because the USDOJ includes it in their mission statement. Contention 1: Trials enhance justice a) Trials are a necessary condition for justice Guilt or innocence is an empirical matter. The goal of trials is to investigate this truth. Two or more lawyers, skilled in law and reasoning, argue before an impartial judge or jury of the accused's peers. They present evidence to build their cases until a verdict is reached. There are many things that can go wrong during trials, but the point is that their purpose is to investigate the guilt of the accused. Solving the whodunit is a necessary prerequisite of Justice. b) Punishment must be decided in court If guilt becomes established, the court will then decide upon a sentence or penalty. The court may not always choose correctly, but again, it is a necessary (but insufficient condition) for justice. Contention 2: Plea Bargaining is unjust a) Plea Bargaining is Coercive Dr. Craig Roberts Explains: "Defendants who insist on exercising their constitutional right to a jury trial risk a substantially increased sentence if they are convicted, and this sentencing differential alone is enough to make plea bargaining coercive" (pp. 85-86)." [3] The worst case scenario is obviously where an innocent person plea bargains because they're intimidated by the trial. This results in prosecution of innocents, which is unjust. b) Plea Bargaining Replaces Trials Dr. Craig Roberts Continues: "According to common law, a defendant must be proved guilty; but plea-bargaining enables the State to avoid its burden." c) Moral Hazard Plea bargaining is often offered in return for testimony or cooperation in related court cases. DCR continues: "Blackstone condemned this practice in the eighteenth century, noting that such induced confessions cannot be trusted; but prosecutors, anxious at all costs for a high conviction rate, have no use for long-established historical rights." This setup rewards testimony given against others. In theory, a small bad guy is supposed to testify against a big bad guy and there is supposed to be more justice because you've put the big bad guy away. However, since the reward is a reduced sentence, the incentive is to give any testimony at all even if it is false. So this is a prisoner's dilemma problem where all parties have an incentive to defect. This results in universal conviction regardless of actual individual guilt or innocence. === Con Case === Contention 1: The very best extension he can make is that PB can enhance justice by compromising on some cases and prioritizing others. First, this admits that PB is intrinsically unjust. So a certain portion of cases will be "ruined", aka "undermined" (according to Con's definition). This contention would seem to concede that PB undermines the criminal justice system. Second, the only way you can get more justice out of this scenario is if trivial cases are PBed, and non-trivial cases are brought to court. But lawyers and judges have no incentive to prioritize justice. As Con writes, they are mainly "concerned about their own calendars" and caseload. PB would seem to be a shortcut that lawyers take, not to enhance justice, but to make their lives easier. The utilitarian arguments here can be ignored. Again, maybe an "undermined" system is the best we can do, but its still undermined. Contention 2: Con is basically trying to turn the automatic conviction of everyone into an advantage. First, this obviously means innocent people will be punished unjustly. Secondly, it means the guilty get off easier, because you PB for a reduced punishment. Contention 3: There is nothing just about avoiding trials. Should we give all accused the right to emigrate to Mexico just because it gives them benefits? Contention 4: This is simply a utilitarian argument pointing out that compromise is necessary. Again, this concedes that the criminal justice system is undermined. Contention 5: The evidence gained via plea bargaining is similar to the evidence obtained under torture. It is unreliable because the victim has been threatened with harsh punishment. See my contention 2c. [1] http://en.wiktionary.org... [2] http://www.justice.gov... [3] http://mises.org...