Instigator / Pro
42
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#306

Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
3
Better sources
12
2
Better legibility
6
3
Better conduct
6
1

After 6 votes and with 33 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
9
1484
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

--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

-->
@Username

ROFL!

-->
@David

"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.

-->
@Logical-Master

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!

-->
@David

"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.

-->
@Logical-Master

The fact the law encourages innocent people to testify against another innocent person is kinda disgusting.

-->
@Logical-Master

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.

-->
@David

"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.

-->
@Logical-Master

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.

-->
@Logical-Master

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

-->
@David

"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.

-->
@Logical-Master

Agree. Also if anyone files a false charge, they should get the same time the other perosn would have gotten.

-->
@David

"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.

-->
@Logical-Master

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

-->
@David

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.

-->
@Logical-Master

I agree 100%!

Also people exonerated from DNA evidence ought to get at least 1 million for every year in jail.

-->
@David

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.

-->
@bsh1

Wanna accept? I know we were wanting to do a speech debate on it