Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

Given that my opponent knows about what plea bargaining is, I'll do something different (other than providing definitions) this time. I'd like to open with a series of quotes. " 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 defence."~U.S Constitution (problem with plea bargaining in this sense, is that the prosecutor becomes the D.A, the judge, the "unimpartial" jury, and the public audience all in one) and "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."~ U.S. Constitution (problem with this is that people who steal and receive a plea bargain, and people who steal and go to trial; don't get the same sentences/aren't receiving equal protection of the law) ======================== Ask yourself, How can a cop-out be just when it's used in the judicial system? It can't be. Because of this, I concur with the following: Resolved- Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust. CONTENTION 1-My first Contention is that Plea Bargaining undermines our idealistic criminal program. The goal of any criminal justice system ought to be to convict the guilty and free the innocent. Now, the American criminal justice system rests on the assumption, carried over from the British common law tradition, that the injustice of convicting the innocent is greater than that of allowing the guilty go free. William Blackstone's well known maxim that it is "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" is one that rests at the core of the American criminal justice system. In American criminal courts, the burden of proof rests squarely on the state: people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Plea Bargaining aims more on holding someone responsible for a crime, oppose to finding out who the right person really is. All their worried about are convictions, and not the fact that their unjust convictions. The reality of the matter is, that they don't know a criminal is guilty every time they offer a plea bargaining. Which brings me to my next contention. ============= CONTENTION 2- BRIBERY IS UNJUST IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE When it comes to plea bargaining in exchange for testimony this exchange is an inherently unjust means to achieve potentially just ends. The easiest way to illustrate will be to consider two other practices: bribery and torture. Suppose a defendant, offers to donate a lot of money to charity in exchange for a lighter sentence? Most would agree that the wealthy ought not to be able to exchange money for a lighter sentence. In fact, one of the most common criticisms of the American criminal justice system is that the poor are far more likely to be convicted when they are charged with the same crime. The ability of people to exchange money for a lighter sentence is widely considered an injustice. Why, then, should be it right for a person to exchange information for a lighter sentence? Surely, a large donation to charity might do more good for society than paying to have someone serve time behind bars, so why not let the wealthy criminals trade their wealth for their freedom? Secondly, we're talking about criminals with nothing to lose and EVERYTHING/FREEDOM to gain. Does it seem hard to realize that these people have more motivation than ever to lie, on top of them being unjust people already? This pushes toward my next contention. ============= CONTENTION 3- PLEA BARAINING IS COERCION AND ENTICES PEOPLE TO LIE. Consider the following example: Bob and Ray, two brothers, are accused of having committing the same murder. The circumstances of the crime is such that the District Attorney does not have sufficient evidence against either brother without them testifying against one another. The District Attorney decides to put the two brothers into a classical "prisoner's dilemma." That is, he instructs the police to arrest Bob and Ray and he has them put into separate jail cells where he can offer them each plea deals in exchange for their testimony. The district attorney explains that: -- If one brother testifies and the other remains silent, the brother who testifies would go free and the silent brother would likely be sentenced to twenty years to life in prison. --- If both brothers refuse to testify, the district attorney tells the brothers he will charge them with lesser offenses that will likely result in each of them receiving jail sentences of about two years. --- If the brothers both testify, each will likely receive a sentence of ten to fifteen years. The district attorney offers these plea deals to each brother separately and does not let them confer with one another before making their decision. Neither brother knows for sure what choice his sibling might make. How should the brother's act? Bob and Ray each have only two choices: stay silent or testify. As you can see from the table above, neither brother, assuming he wants to avoid a very long prison sentence, has any real incentive other than sibling loyalty to stay silent. If Bob were to stay silent, there are two possibilities: his brother betrays him, in which case he get sent to prison for twenty year to life or his brother also stays silent in which case both of them get two years in prison. However, if Bob were two betray his brother, the results in both instances are better: either his brother stays silent, in which case he would be let go, or his brother testifies against him in which case he receives a sentence of fifteen years in prison-a long sentence, no doubt, but still a significantly better sentence than twenty to life. From the point of view of the district attorney, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony would have worked out quite well. By engaging in plea bargaining, the two brothers would likely both testify against one another and receive relatively long prison sentences. Simply by separating the two brothers and offering them each the same deal. But an impartial looking at this notices someone is innocent and they're both either paying for something the other has done or something a completely different person has done. It is worth noting, by the way, that my example though clearly hypothetical is neither particularly far fetched nor overly contrived. Many people, for it, assume that the only time a prosecutor will offer a plea bargain in exchange for testimony is when the person being offered a plea deal is guilty of a minor offense and the person against whom testimony is sought is potentially guilty of a much more serious crime. But this is not always the case. So, what does this long digression have to do with the presumption of innocence? Wasn't the district attorney able to come up with an ingenious method of protecting the public in this case? Without having offered plea bargains in exchange for testimony, both of the brothers would likely have received light sentences for relatively minor offenses. The district attorney managed to get two accused murderers to testify against one another and avoided either of them being set free. What could possibly be unjust? Well, suppose neither Bob nor Ray were guilty? Under the circumstances the district attorney put the brothers in, they're unjustly forced to pick between silence = jail time or lying= freedom. Resolution Affirmed