Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

Snelld7's Tournament: Round 1 ::The Basics:: I stand in affirmation of the following resolution: plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust. For the sake of familiarity, accuracy, and relevance, all arguments will pertain to the U.S. unless otherwise stated. Now for a few definitions: - Plea bargaining: the negotiation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plead guilty to a reduced charge [1] - Exchange: the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another [2] - Testimony: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official [3] - Unjust: characterized by injustice: unfair [4] - Justice: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishment [5] ::Arguments:: 1. Unfair to Victims and Society Plea bargains, including those given in exchange for testimony, are inherently unjust to those most deserving of the protections of law: the victims. Our legal system determines one's punishment based in large part on the severity of their crime. However, when the accused are allowed to reduce their sentence in exchange for some service, the appropriateness of their charge is ignored and fitting justice for the victim is lost [6]. Such a system serves to inappropriately benefit the criminal at the expense of those they have wronged. This injustice is compounded by the harm plea bargains do to society at large. By allowing criminals to face only a small portion of their due charge, plea bargains fail to instill the expected punishment of the law. Crimes no longer carry with them the shadow of harsh consequences, as experienced criminals understand that pleas can and will lighten their sentence significantly. Thus, pleas work to undermine society's sense of legal justice and security by acting as a means through which criminal activity can go partially unaddressed. 2. Innocents are Endangered Our legal system is based first and foremost on protecting the innocent, which is a concept that is severely threatened by the practice of plea bargaining. Given the stark differences in punishment for those who accept pleas as opposed to those who deny them [7], the accused are strongly motivated to lie in an attempt to lessen their charges. If an accused is offered a significantly lighter sentence in exchange for testimony, the likelihood of false information being provided doubtlessly increases. Not only do these circumstances benefit the criminals for lying, they endanger innocent citizens who are likely to be punished because of the appeal of the plea bargain. In addition, should the individual charged with the original crime be innocent, plea bargains increase the likelihood that they will be wrongly sentenced. Pleas are presented in such a light that denying them is tantamount to subduing oneself to extreme punishment [7]. Wrongfully accused citizens, when presented the choice of an uncertain trial carrying a hefty punishment or a guilty plea carrying a lesser punishment, they will often choose the latter. By presenting them with a false sense of salvation, plea bargains ensure that innocents serve time for crimes they didn't commit. 3. Legally Suspicious Plea bargains find no basis in the constitution. While this does not mean the practice is necessarily unjust, its current use within our justice system blurs the line between the power of the court and the rights of the defendant. The constitution provides citizens with the right to a speedy trial [8], but this right is being undermined by the extreme frequency of plea bargaining. During this practice, prosecutors use threats of swelled charges to coerce defendants into fearfully and ignorantly selling their rights. This intimidation is occurring so frequently and penalties for denying it are so great that our constitutional right for trial by jury has been all but erased through coercion and judicial convenience. This reality is unjust to not only the accused, but also to our entire law-based society. Pleas in exchange for testimony are especially suspect, appearing to be little more than legal bribes. Defined as "money or favors given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust" [9], bribes are understood to be illegal and unethical within our judicial system. However, pleas in exchange for testimony parallel this definition perfectly; defendants promise to divulge information in the hopes that prosecutors and judges will reduce their charges. Once again, this stands as a blatant injustice to defendants and the legal system at large. ::Closing:: I have demonstrated how plea bargains, both in general and those involving testimony, are unfair and unethical toward nearly all parties involved. Defendants are pressured by overzealous prosecutors to abandon their constitutional right to a trial by jury. Innocent citizens are easily ensnared by both the false testimony of desperate criminals and a plea system that almost ensures unjustified jail time. Victims and society are denied their legal expectation of appropriate justice when wrongdoers are granted lesser sentences. Finally, our legal system is tainted by the continual presence and acceptance of bribes in the form of coerced testimony. Thank you for reading and I eagerly await my opponent's response. ::References:: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 6. http://sentencing.typepad.com... - Full article, pg 14 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 9. http://www.merriam-webster.com...