Topic #29: Plea Bargaining should be Banned. (Attempt 2)

Topic 29 of Round 2. Darth_Grievous_42 vs PublicForumG-d. To be judged by usernames Evan_MacIan, shaqdaddy34, and dmill2010. As Pro, I will be defending that Plea Bargaining should be banned, thus the polar opposite of my stance that PublicForumG-d will have to defend is that Plea Bargaining should NOT be banned. As I am not well versed in foreign court procedures, I will be arguing from an American Perspective. If my opponent wishes to bring up worldwide cases he is more than welcome to do so, and I will do my best to defend against them, but as of right now, I'll be sticking with what I know. The long and short of what plea-bargaining essentially means is bargaining for a plea. Or in more technical terms, the defendant will admit a guilty plea (/information in some cases) to the crime he/she is being convicted of, and in return the prosecutor will settle for a lesser sentence than the original one. This loose definition is compiled of many differing definitions I've found on the internet, if you look it up, they will all say in more or less words, just that. My stance is that this bargaining should be banned. My opponent will likely bring up the cases that it alleviates court stress, and in some cases helps the defendant. While this may be true, that does not necessitate that it is right on Constitutional grounds. The American Constitution states in Article III section 2: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have ( directed.http://www.usconstitution.net...... ) Note: SHALL BE BY JURY. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime (In short, no self incrimination) And the Sixth states: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Trial by Jury) In the cases of plea Bargaining, it violates these rules specifically set by the founding fathers. All citizens, regardless of what they accused of, are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a fair and balanced trial to be judged by a selection of their peers. Now remember, this isn't about what you personally like, it is about right and wrong, legal and not. In which case, plea-bargaining explicitly violates the terms set for the foundation of this society. Rather, it has been made simply for the convenience of the courts, not those accused. By invoking plea-bargaining, they are already sending the message that 'your guilty, we WILL prove it, and you'll go to jail or we can skip the proving part and you'll go to jail LESS'. Seems enticing yes? That's EXACTLY what its supposed to do! What they don't tell this scared-out-of-his-mind person is that he can invoke the trial and maybe get off Scotch free. In most cases, the reason that they invoke it is because they may not have sufficient evidence to prove that they are guilty, and/or just don't want to find it. It is estimated that in 2000, 87.1% of all cases were settled only on plea-bargaining, while 5.2% took it to trial. For those who invoked their right to an attorney, only 6% went on trial, while the rest plea-bargained. Nowhere, that I can find, do any of the three fundamental documents of America (Declaration, Bill of Rights, Constitution) have a law where it mentions bargaining in either a good or bad light. This means that it was made up by the courts for the courts, not the people. They only want the 'speedy' part mentioned in the 6th amendment. This is not right. It may get criminals off on lighter charges then they would have had if proven guilty, but also, they have waived their right to try and get any freedom at all! Look at the O.J. Simpson case. He could have bargained and admitted he did it as a majority of America thought he had, yet he took it to court and won! You personally may not agree with it, that is, until it's you on the stand. Now a lawyer and some detectives say that all this complicated and ultimately harmful court procedures 'that we know will prove you guilty' can all be avoided, and you'll get that much less. Perhaps you would want to take it. What if they are right? You could go to prison for life! Or you sign the paper and admit your guilty and you'll 'just' get 30 years with chance of parole. Which sounds more enticing. In this situation, of course the matter-of-fact lesser one beats the possibility of a more serious charge. But what your not thinking about 98% of the time is that you could get off. So, in essence, these saviors are only playing off of your irrationality and fears so that they can still get paid for not doing their job that the Constitution mandates they do. The numbers of cases that go to trial don't matter, that's the courts job to figure out. Their stress should not violate any persons right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. This is why this already illegal act of plea-bargaining should be banned, on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and infringes upon the rights of individuals guaranteed by that document and others. I'll bring up specific trials where plea-bargaining has been proven, not only ineffective, but also unjust as well in the next round. Until then, I'll let PublicForumG-d present his case on why court approved illegal activities should continue. I await your reply, which must be up this time tomorrow on April 20th. Good Luck.