Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 33 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
--Topic--
Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.
--Definitions--
Plea Barganning: an arrangement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in the expectation of leniency.
Ought: indicates moral desirability
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
- Defendants convicted of drug offenses with mandatory minimum sentences who went to trial received sentences on average 11 years longer than those who pled guilty (215 versus 82.5 months).
- Among first-time drug defendants facing mandatory minimum sentences who had the same offense level and no weapon involved in their offense, those who went to trial had almost twice the sentence length of those who pled guilty (117.6 months versus 59.5 months).
- Among defendants who were eligible for a sentencing enhancement because of prior convictions, those who went to trial were 8.4 times more likely to have the enhancement applied than those who plead guilty.
- Among drug defendants with a weapon involved in their offense, those who went to trial were 2.5 times more likely to receive consecutive sentences for §924(c) charges than those who pled guilty.
Plea bargaining undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. Instead of establishing a defendant’s guilt and sentence though an impartial process with a complete investigation and an opportunity for the defence to present its case, prosecutors take on the role of judge and jury, making all determinations based on the probability of whether they will win or lose at trial. The end result is a decision that has little to do with the primary objectives of the criminal justice system.
ROFL!
"Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail." $1 million seems like too much for just one year in prison.
It is much MUCH MUCH higher. I've even gotten the opportunity to question cops/prosecutors about their tactics behind closed doors and they've told me that these defendants weren't guilty of the crimes they were charged, they were probably guilty of something else anyway so it all works out in the end. Disgusting.
That is utterly horrendous and deplorable. No wonder no one trusts the cops!
"They need to thoroughly examine the witness and the evidence before getting an arrest warrant or trying the case."
They say they do, but sometimes I wonder. Had a case a couple of weeks ago in which the my client, a mother, was defending her son against a college-aged female wielding a knife. The son got his arm slashed up and the mom receiving ample cuts and bruises. The police arrived and arrested the mom despite this. I got this stupid charge dismissed ultimately, but my client still ended up losing her good paying job in the process.
"I cited an alarming number of innocent people who plead guilty to murder charges. I shudder to think how many innocent people were convicted of lesser crimes."
It is much MUCH MUCH higher. I've even gotten the opportunity to question cops/prosecutors about their tactics behind closed doors and they've told me that these defendants weren't guilty of the crimes they were charged, they were probably guilty of something else anyway so it all works out in the end. Disgusting.
"The fact the law encourages innocent people to testify against another innocent person is kinda disgusting."
It makes even the shittiest of prosecution cases into viable cases when you can threaten/blackmail witnesses into testifying.
The fact the law encourages innocent people to testify against another innocent person is kinda disgusting.
I agree.
They need to thoroughly examine the witness and the evidence before getting an arrest warrant or trying the case.
I cited an alarming number of innocent people who plead guilty to murder charges. I shudder to think how many innocent people were convicted of lesser crimes.
"The biggest issue I see with rape cases and sexual assault cases is that it's really their word against his. Unless it's collaborated by quite a few people (as in the Cosby case) it's really impossible to prove without DNA evidence."
Which is sad because the victim's testimony alone, by law, is sufficient to convict you. Sadly, a great deal of alleged victims have used this to their advantage (whether it be to get back at ex-husband/boyfriend or to get ahead in a divorce or child custody dispute). And even if you do manage to beat the charges, that doesn't rid of you of the stigma of what you were charged with in your community, the time you spent in custody (especially if you couldn't make bail), the job you've no doubt lost due to the charge, the money you are no doubt out of if you weren't indigent already and the emotional distress you've suffered (some of which will be suicidal). We have a truly diabolical system in our country (nothing like what the founders envisioned) and all you can do is hope and pray that you don't wake up one morning until to find out that you have become the government's next target.
The biggest issue I see with rape cases and sexual assault cases is that it's really their word against his. Unless it's collaborated by quite a few people (as in the Cosby case) it's really impossible to prove without DNA evidence.
That's rather disgusting. Openly committing perjury and filing false charges in court should not be tolerated. At minimum she should be forced to pay the defendant his legal fees AND pay the state back for whatever it cost to try the case
"Also if anyone files a false charge, they should get the same time the other perosn would have gotten."
DAs offices are generally hesitant to do that. On the one hand, prosecuting a false charges case makes their office look bad for having previously prosecuted an innocent person in the first place (they'd rather sweep it under the rug). On the other hand, there *generally* (as in it does happen, but not often) just isn't enough political capital involved to make prosecuting, for example, a woman for lying about rape or domestic assault case worthwhile. It's sad, but that's how they see things. I recently had an order of protection violation case in which I was able to expose the alleged victim on the stand for telling a bald faced lie (of which she walked back on her allegations and blamed it on being so "afraid" of my client). During my closing argument, I jumped up and down about how she committed blatant perjury and how the DA's office needs to prosecute her. All I got from the judge and the prosecutor was crickets.
Agree. Also if anyone files a false charge, they should get the same time the other perosn would have gotten.
"I agree 100%!
Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail."
You'd be surprised. Even when the law demands that these exonerated defendants get a payout, the State will fight tooth and nail to see to it that that doesn't happen. Just look at this example: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lawrence-mckinney-wrongful-conviction-tennessee-75-lawyer-dna-evidence-petition-governor-bill-haslam-a7478396.html
The beauty of rape cases is that they involve DNA and thus exonerating these defendants can be done in a concrete/fullproof fashion. But just imagine all of the criminal defendants who plead guilty and whose cases don't involve any DNA whatsoever. They have zero recourse and are currently sitting in jail for something they didn't do. It's a f-cked up system and something needs to change.
Exactly! Innocence is completely irrelevent today. Defendants are already in a altard state of mind and they're just bullying them into accepting a deal regardless if they are innocent
What prosecutors do is that they stack a bunch of trumped up charges onto each other and tell defendants that they'll drop all but one charge if they plea guilty and that they'll prosecute every charge and push for a consecutive sentence if they don't plea guilty. Many times, this winds up being the difference between serving a couple of years and a couple of decades in jail, so of course the "logical" decision is to "plea guilty" regardless of guilt or innocence. To the defendants, it is about how much they are willing to risk fiddling around in an otherwise rigged system.
I agree 100%!
Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail.
In a law school, I thought the PRO position was nonsense. Having done criminal defense for a couple of years now, however, the PRO position is the only sane position to have. If the government were forced to try every case they prosecuted, the government would lack the means to try a majority of the BS cases they're currently prosecuting and would be forced to focus on prosecuting people who are actually harming the public. I'd further propose forcing the government to foot the defense's legal fees whenever losing a case: https://www.debateart.com/debates/120
I'm pro on this also, I'll wait until the debate is over to comment further.
Wanna accept? I know we were wanting to do a speech debate on it