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

First, I must thank Grievous for his kindness. To begin, I'm going to talk about my opponent's burdens, then his contentions, and finally move to my own. @American Perspective: I agree to limit this debate to an American society. @Burden of Proof: I would like to point out that the Aff must prove the entire resolution true, in every aspect of PBing. Contentions: My opponent contends that PBing violates the Constitution. I'm going to explain Constitutionality in general, then each specific part. General: PBing is completely voluntary. The Constitution says that the Government cannot REMOVE these rights from any citizen, but it doesn't say anything about the citizen's right to waive these rights. For example, 1) All citizens have the Constitutional Right to remain silent. 2) But anyone who's watched Cops knows that many of these people talk when they're arrested. 3) The reason they can do this? They waive their right to remain silent. The Constitution isn't *mandating* that they remain silent, but merely providing them with that option – an option which cannot be taken by the government, only given up by the person: Which is exactly what a PB is. Specifically: Article 3 Section 2: Summary: All people have the right to a trial by jury. This goes back to my general refutation. In a PB, the only way it can occur is if the defendant agrees to plead guilty. This is actually the ideal form of justice – if you're guilty, you admit it! Its how the justice system would work in an ideal world. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Not all guilty people tell the truth. So, we are forced to take them to trial to determine their innocence. PBers are doing the right thing – they recognize their guilt, and admit it. And since the Justice system is forced to examine every single one of the millions of crimes that happen every day in excruciating detail, and the PBers are helping them out by being truthful, they reward them with a smaller sentence. Fifth Amendment: Summary: No one can be forced to testify against themselves. When you lie in a court of law, it is known as perjury – a crime punishable by jail time. Therefore, when a guilty defendant is asked whether or not he is guilty of a crime, he as two choices; lie (and commit a crime) or tell the truth (and screw himself over). The Founding Fathers recognized this dilemma (which left no fair legal recourse for the accused) and added the Fifth Amendment: No one may be FORCED to testify against themselves. But that doesn't say anything about people who WILLINGLY give up their right to testify against themselves – which is exactly what a PB is. The US Supreme Court agrees in North Carolina v Alford. Sixth Amendment: Summary: "Trial By Jury." I direct you to my refutation of Article 3 Section 2 – no one is being deprived of their right to a trial by jury. They are merely exercising their right to waive other rights. "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' " This is pretty unrealistic. The difference between plea-bargain and trial sentence is not so great that people will willingly opt for the unpleasantness of imprisonment, lifelong stigma, a criminal record, etc. for something they haven't done. The argument also ignores an important legal principle: that you should never plead guilty to something you haven't done. My opponent seems to forget what he said two sentences up: "All citizens, regardless of what they accused of, are ALL innocent until proven guilty" The burden of proof is on the Government, not the people, and if there is no evidence that they committed a crime, or evidence that they were elsewhere, why would they plead guilty? And to address his statistics; the reason so many people take PBs is because of 1 Mandatory Sentencing or 2 They really are guilty, and want a lesser sentence (which is ok, because they are being rewarded for telling the truth) "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" Actually, they DO have to tell you that. In Miranda v Arizona, the man was not informed of several of his Constitutional rights (attorney, trial, silence, etc) and because of this, they threw the trial out. That's where we get the phrase "Miranda Rights" from. Your Miranda rights cannot be violated or it's a mistrial, and the case gets thrown out. "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." Thank you for proving my point. According to the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution: ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."" What this means is that, unless there is a power specifically assigned to the Federal Government or unless it is specifically forbidden to the States then it is the RIGHT of the States and People to invoke that. And since my opponent says that there is no part of the Constitution against PBing we agree; it is a right of people to PB. "THIS MEANS THAT IT WAS MADE UP BY THE COURTS FOR THE COURTS, NOT THE PEOPLE." Actually, the Courts aren't allowed to just "make stuff up." In fact, they don't make anything up – the legislature does. They can rule on Constitutionality of something though, and with PBing they did. 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! Actually PBing provides a concrete conviction of the criminal. In OJs case, if he had PBed, he would have definitely been convicted . But by not PBing, he actually received no sentence at all. I think its fair to say that OJ was guilty – even his lawyers didn't try to argue that. His lawyers argued that the police were racially biased and that evidence was not collected in accordance with the rules of the courts. His guilt was actually pretty much left out of it. Now to my contentions: Plea Bargaining helps avoid mandatory sentencing guidelines. Mandatory Sentencing guidelines are strict, tie the hands of judges, and prevent them from exercising due discretion over the facts of a case. In many cases (especially with drugs) jail sentences are worse for the person than rehabilitation. However, some places choose to institute a mandatory amount of time to be served in jail for even a first offence. This ‘one size fits all' mentality ignores the idea of rehabilitation, and instead demands harsh, merciless, blind punishment. PB allows benevolent prosecutors to get around this by never taking it to trial – an avoidance of these merciless sentences. PB allows prosecutors to use common sense, and expert advice, to see if rehabilitation, probation, or a smaller sentence would benefit society more than just unfairly damning the accused. Plea Bargaining alleviates a severe burden on the court system and society. From PBS [1]. "And, from the state's point of view, the main benefit of the plea bargain is that it saves time and money. Almost everyone acknowledges that the system would collapse if every case that was filed were to be set for trial; there is not enough money to try every case. Law professor Bruce Green tells FRONTLINE, "It… is…fairer to witnesses and prospective jurors. Imagine if in all these cases, the victims and witnesses had to come to court to testify. And in all these cases, people had to leave their jobs in order to serve on juries. That would be very onerous for the public." Thank you.