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

Again, I'll start with my opponent's case, and move to my own. TRUE, CITIZENS CAN WAIVE THEIR RIGHTS This concession proves my case. If citizens can give up their rights then the fundamental premise to my case stands. I'll explain with my opponent's quote: A CITIZEN CAN DO AS THEY WANT WITH THEIR RIGHTS, BUT LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOWINGLY PRESENTING THAT OPTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL We both acknowledge that they can waive their rights. Your 3rd sentence of your 2nd speech says so. So let's look logically. Premise 1: Americans can waive rights Premise 2: Trial By Jury is a right Conclusion: Trial by jury can be (and IS) waived UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT AND WRONG ARE NOT THE STANDARDS ON LEGAL PRACTICES Of course, we're not only talking about legal practices. We are debating, as a voting issue, legality, but the ethical nature of PBing can contribute to the resolution (which, being phrased as "should" almost implies that there should be a moral factor). Actually, since my opponent's ‘refutation' of this is to call it non-topical because it doesn't fit with his single voting issue, extend this. THEY HAVE TO BE JUDGED BY A JURY…THEY FACE THE SENTENCE MADE BY THE JURY, NOT BY LAWYERS I think I understand the disconnect here; criminals are not sentenced by juries ever. In every case, the Judge hands down the sentence. A PB is just where the prosecution agrees to set the sentence instead of having a trial – ONLY with the consent of the accused. Let me explain further; the reason you have judges is to determine which side is right; in this debate, we have a judge because I believe I am right, and you believe you are right. In a trial, the Prosecution believes it is right, and the Defendant believes it is right. However, like this debate, if I conceded and said, "Grievous, advance to the next bracket" we wouldn't need any judges – the decision would already be rendered; because we both agree that you should advance. Similarly, in a trial the jury is used to judge the innocence of the defendant. However, if the defendant admits themselves guilty, why would we need judges? It's the same as the debate round; everyone agrees on the outcome. There's no battle of wills to be decided which is right. HE THEN APPEALED SAYING THAT HE WAS GOADED ON TO ACCEPTING THE PB UNDER THE FEAR OF THE DEATH PENALTY, AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS REVERSED. THE SUPREME COURT STILL MAINTAINED THAT HIS PLEA WAS VALID, HOWEVER, AND KEPT THE SENTENCE The first case (before the Supreme Court one) found that he was goaded; that means that by reversing it, the Supreme Court found that he WASN'T goaded. The Supreme Court found in Brady v United States that it was not a violation of "voluntaryness" by fear of a heavier sentence. If the man was innocent, he had NO REASON AT ALL to fear the death penalty. The fact that he DID fear it indicated that he was guilty – and he was for 1st degree murder. The Supreme Court noted that despite his 'protest' of innocence, he openly and willingly "admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty." As for Hayes v Kentucky, it appears you outright lied. Here's a case summary: "The case of Paul Lewis Hayes, a small-time American fraudster and petty criminal. Hayes already had two felony convictions on his record when he was caught forging a cheque for $88.30. Prosecutors told Hayes he would get a five-year prison term if he plead guilty, but if he chose to go to trial, he would be indicted under Kentucky's Habitual Criminal Act, which carried a mandatory sentence of life in prison. Hayes refused to accept a five-year term for an $88-crime. He was convicted as a habitual offender and sentenced to life in prison. Hayes argued all the way to the Supreme Court that his sentence was unconstitutional, and represented a punishment for exercising his right to a jury trial. But in a watershed 1978 decision, the Court ruled that since Hayes was free to accept or decline the state's offer, and knew the potential consequences of each option, there was no coercion." OF COURSE THEY TELL YOU, BUT THEY IN PARTICULARLY EMPHASIZE WHY YOU SHOULD NOT PURSUE THOSE RIGHTS. SO WHILE THEY ARE NOT TECHNICALLY BEING VIOLATED, THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT FULLY BEING UPHELD. Well first, this contradicts your first speech where you said that they don't tell you at all. Secondly, based on you only using ‘legality' something ‘not technically being violated' still means that its legal. So either way, this supports my position. However, I don't concede that: Prosecutors earn money based on the number of convictions they get. In fact, a prosecutor who is seen as ‘not putting out' by not getting convictions, is a "short lived prosecutor". If they even SLIGHTLY coerce the defendant during the PB, the entire case is kicked out of court. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LAW THAT SAYS IT IS LEGAL There are multiple ways to make a law; formally and informally. Congress makes formal laws. If no law is made about something (ie PBing) and its done, people have the right to challenge its Constitutionality in Court. Which they have and the Court has Consistantly agreed that PBing is legal. This is what is known as an "informal" law. This also goes back to my 10th Amendment argument; no part of the Constitution says "No PBing", and as I've shown, and the Supreme Court has agreed, there is no Constitutional issue with PBing. WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT IS ROMANTICISM No, what I'm talking about is called facts. Especially in drug cases, blind punishment for something leaves the problem unsolved; the person is still addicted to drugs. Providing them with alternatives that allow them to get healthier, rather than slapping them across the face and saying "BAD!" often provide more benefit to everyone; the drug addict is less likely to relapse which means there's less on the court's plate as well. But that's not all; we put judges on the bench because we believe they are good judges. To then tell them that they are not allowed to exercise discretion, but must sentence in a certain way, to appear "tough on crime" is ludicrous. TEDIOUSNESS AND ONEROUSITY ARE NO MORE ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR VIOLATING THE LAW I don't think you understand; its not about ‘convenience' or ‘tediousness' – its about the total collapse of the judicial system. The amounts of criminal cases that enter jurisdictions are staggering, and, as I stated in my first speech, "Almost everyone acknowledges that the system would collapse if every case that was filed were to be set for trial". Its just not possible. To put the cap on this, The Supreme Court, some of the most brilliant men in the nation, who are more educated than either of us debaters, who have had people exponentially smarter than either of us arguing for and against PBing have come to these conclusions: Boykin v. Alabama: The Supreme Court ruled PBing constitutional. Brady v. United States: The Supreme Court ruled that the voluntariness of a guilty plea was not vitiated by fear of a heavier sentence following trial, even though that fear was death under a statute that the Court declared unconstitutional subsequent to Brady's guilty plea. What this means that, even if he was afraid of the death penalty, its still considered voluntary under the Constitution. Another ruling of Constitutional. Santobello v. New York: The Court described PBing as "an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged" In fact, on the issue of the 6th Amendment: The Supreme Court has defined the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of "Assistance of Counsel" to mean effective assistance, which seems to entail a modicum of bargaining and negotiation, as suggested in Strickland v. Washington and Nix v. Whiteside. Again and again and again the Highest Court in the nation has found PBing Constitutional. Why shouldn't you?