In the United States, Plea Bargaining in Exchange for Testimony is Unjust.

I'll start by presenting my case, then going over standards, and finish up with a point-by-point rebuttal of my opponent's case. Before I present my case, I'd like to present the following overview: Plea bargaining is a tool used by prosecutors to expedite and ensure the fair proceeding of justice. As a tool, it can not be a "just" or "unjust" entity, in the same way that hammer is not a "just" or "unjust" entity. It is something we use, and unless my opponent can adequately demonstrate why plea bargaining is not a tool, it is impossible for the resolution to be correct. I negate the resolution, resolved: In the United States, plea-bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust. Because the resolution questions whether a certain practice is just or unjust, the most appropriate value for the round is Justice, defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. It is the burden of the United States legal system to decide the fate of the accused. In order for legal system rulings to be conducted in the most fair and appropriate manner, they must be able to properly provide an accurate sentence to the accused parties by using a system that allows all facts and information to be rightfully considered. The court must deal with the accused in an objective manner. In all of these goals, the system's underlying goal is protecting rights. As such, the best value criterion for the round is the protection of rights. My first contention argues that plea bargaining ensures that the legal system can handle all the cases it is presented. The Oxford Companion to American Law states that "Most criminal cases are not resolved by a jury trial, or by a trial of any kind. Instead, in about 90 percent of criminal cases, the defendant waives trial and pleads guilty. Some defendants, wishing to take responsibility for their criminal conduct, plead guilty without any prompting from judges or prosecutors." As such, the process of plea-bargaining provides a way to successfully and realistically deal with many cases in a short amount of time, which allows those who wish to accept their guilt and find a suitable punishment to their crime to be quickly be dealt with. This provides an expedited way of dealing with criminals, and allows the legal system to have the capacity to allow those who desire a trial by judge or jury to claim their right to a fair and speedy trial. Chief Justice Warren Burger, delivering the majority opinion in Santobello v. New York, agrees: "'Plea bargaining' is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged. If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-scale trial, the States and the Federal Government would need to multiply by on a great order of magnitude the number of judges and court facilities." Therefore, plea bargaining ensures that the justice system is able to handle the thousands of cases it is given each year. Without plea bargaining, the justice system would collapse under its own weight trying to organize a trial for each and every case. Our right to trial would become a mandate to have to go to trial, and it would cease to be a right anymore. In this manner, rights would not be protected and the criterion would not be achieved. Abolishing plea bargaining would not achieve our value of Justice. My second contention is that trials are not always in the best interest of justice. Thomas W. Church elaborates in an article in the Law and Society Review, where he states that: "Trials do involve a risk that the factually innocent defendant may be found legally guilty. Legal innocence is merely an attorney's prediction prior to a trial. And the most competent attorney can err in predicting success on the basis of procedural defenses such as exclusion of incriminating evidence, or entrapment, alibi witnesses, and the like. If most defendants did not face a very real chance of conviction at trial, all incentive to bargain would be eliminated, and with it this critique of plea bargaining." Although trials can give a defendant, especially an innocent one, the chance to be considered fully innocent, that is not always the outcome. The denotations of trial are also deterrents for an individual to go to trial. Trial represents an arena in which the accused is demonized and vilified as a law-breaker, a morally corrupt individual who deserves incarceration or even death. Even if the accused is innocent, trial is not always a preferable option. Because going to trial means that the defendant must endure the attacks by the prosecutor and other witnesses, plea-bargaining provides a more fair, and comfortable alternative to those who choose that path. For example, consider an innocent person who knows that all evidence is against them. To proceed with trial would mean that they would have to be berated, embarrassed, and dehumanized by a prosecutor in front of the public eye. Because they are innocent, it would be unjust for them to face the full punishment of the law, but since trial would provide a definite and harsh conviction, plea-bargaining could give a more just sentence. The argument of the negative, then, can be summarized easily. Plea bargaining promotes and protects the rights of all in two ways: 1) Plea bargaining makes it possible for the 10% of cases that should go to trial and ensures that the judicial system does not collapse under its own weight, and 2) Plea bargaining ensures that the right to trial remains a right, not a mandate. It also provides an option to innocents who would otherwise be punished unfairly for exercising their right to go to trial. For these reasons, I urge a Negative ballot. I'll now go over standards and then move to my opponent's argument. My opponent presents the best standard for the round as Procedural Justice. Not only is this similar my value of Justice, but it is in fact even more closely related to my value criterion of the protection of rights, because that is what the purpose of proper judicial procedure is. In fact, in my rebuttal I will go on to show you why his standard of procedural justice helps my case in a very significant way. I would like to point out that my opponent presents no criterion for us to determine when we've acheived the value of Procedural Justice. I do offer that standard, and that standard is the protection of rights. Even if my opponent disagrees with this, since he didn't present his own we'll have to look to mine. Therefore, if in my case I can show how we protect rights more through plea bargaining than we harm rights, the resolution is untrue. My opponent's first and only contention (plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is not procedurally just) is based on three subpoints, which I will adress in order. Sub-point A: My opponent argues that plea bargaining incentivizes lying by giving individuals rewards in exchange for testimony. I have two responses to this: 1) There are many checks in place which prevent false testimony from being accepted in court as evidence. Judges often reject plea bargains if they feel it was in any way coerced or the testimony given is faulty. In the 2001 case involving terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, a federal judge rejected him. Furthermore, taken from the Federal Rules of Criminal Sentencing: "a)INSURING THAT THE PLEA IS VOLUNTARY. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first, by ad- dressing the defendant personally in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary and not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement. The court shall also in- quire as to whether the defendant's willingness to plead guilty or nolo contendere results from prior discussions between the attor- ney for the government and the defendant or the defendant's at- torney." I'm out of space so I'll finish the rebuttal in a comment.