Resolved: plea bargaining is systematicly unjust

For the purpose of this debate, i would like to define the following: Plea bargaining: : "the process whereby the accused and the prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval" – as defined by Black's Law legal Dictionary systematicly unjust: a prosess that is unfair to a system or indevisual C1: Plea Bargaining goes against Procedural Justice Protocol Our criminal justice system runs on the procedure of trials. Our Judicial system was designed by our founding fathers and their followers as a somewhat beurocratic system for best determining justice, which is all achieved by trials. When amending the constitution, our founding fathers made it clear that they did not want the principals that make up modern day plea bargaining. These principals are combated in rights such as the; the right to an impartial jury (6th), the right to cross examination of the state's witnesses (6th), and the right to not be compelled to incriminate one's self (5th). (Which I will get to in my third contention) Our founding fathers made these amendments because they saw them ss necessary guidelines for how our court functions. Plea bargaining however goes against every one of the amendments I just sited. The initial purpose of having a trial is to address all possible arguments on either side of a case so that a judge can reach a valid conviction. However, plea bargaining is subject to the presence of an entire court as defined by blacks law. What transpires between the prosecutor and the accused is meant to take place in a court, not under the table. The justice system was put in place to fairly convict criminals, and if our cases begin to transpire without the presence of a court than what's the point of having a court?! Justice is such a specific issue, that we cannot leave the fate of our criminals in the hands of a prosecutor who isn't even in the presence of a court. C2: Plea Bargaining weakens criminal justice In many instances, a criminal will except a plea bargain in order to plead guilty to a lesser crime, such as the case of Bhansali vs. New Orleans. In the case, Abhishek Bhansali hit and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk. However, to avoid trial, Bhansali struck a plea bargain and plead guilty to negligent homicide because it is in his best interest for the conviction. By taking the bargain, Bhansali evaded numerous potential charges including Vehicular manslaughter which holds penalties of up to 30 years in prison. (NOLA NEWS) This is only one of many examples of cases were a criminal can evade potential charges thru plea bargaining. This doesn't only undermine justice, but it undermines the safety of society. If a criminal convicts a crime and manages to slip thru the loop holes of plea bargains, they may not serve the amount of prison time that was legally intended. So not only now have we allowed justice to fail, but we also have an unpunished criminal walking the streets free as a bird. We also have to realize, that in the long run, plea bargaining is a compromise. It is a deal struck between the prosecutor and the defendant in which they each give something up. This is a compromise, and that is not justice works. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines federal justice as: "the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity" So the moment that a prosecutor neglects a potential criminal charge in exchange for a lesser conviction is the moment they have failed to uphold the justice system. The whole point of convicting a criminal is to punish them for the crimes they have committed, not to compromise crimes here and there. Plea bargaining is an easy way out for criminals, and that is undermining the whole point of our judicial system. C3: Plea bargaining can potentially convict an innocent person. In the past, there have been cases of plea bargains known as "Alford Pleas". The name comes from a case know as North Carolina vs. Alford. In this case, Hennery Alford was prosecuted for charges of first degree murder. Eventually, the prosecutor offered Alford a bargain to ether plead innocent, and get the death penalty, or plead guilty and get 30 years in jail. Seeing as to how he didn't have much of a choice, Alford took the bargain and plead guilty. After being convicted for 30 years in prison, Alford addressed multiple courts claiming that he had plead guilty, for the lesser conviction despite his innocence, but the courts ruled that it was his choice to take the bargain. (Webster's New World Law Dictionary) This is only one example of how a defendant can be forced to plead guilty regardless of his or her innocence. Whether or not Alford was innocent is irrelevant, because the case of North Caroline vs. Alford just shows a scenario where a potentially innocent defendant is scared by the prosecutor into a bargain for pleading guilty. (law.cornell.edu) the process of being in a court can be very intimidating, especially if you're against a strong prosecutor. And your attorney might not always make your rights crystal clear. Martin Yant, author of presumed guilt, states with regards to afford pleas; "people who might have been acquitted because of lack of evidence, but also who are in fact truly innocent, will often plead guilty to the charge. Why? In a word, fear." In this scenario, it would not be unusual for the innocent defendant to take the guilty plea. This is not what our justice system is intended to accomplish, this is the opposite of justice, this is undermining our judicial system and this is plea Bargaining.