The Instigator
coryglee
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
yannikmarazia
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Plea bargaining in American criminal courts fails to achieve justice.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
coryglee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 864 times Debate No: 41901
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

coryglee

Con

I would like to have this debate in a Lincoln-Douglas style which focuses more on value than scientific evidence. Thank you.

RESOLVE: Plea bargaining in American criminal courts fails to achieve justice. Before we begin I would like to define the following terms:
  • Plea bargaining: Negotiation process in which defendants agree to plead guilty in exchange for the expectation of fewer of lesser charges or punishments.

-Christopher E. Smith, The US Legal System copyrighted in 2004

  • Criminal Court: a court having jurisdiction over criminal cases.

-http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... court

  • Justice: The process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals.

-http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Plea bargaining in American criminal courts do not fail to achieve justice. The process of plea bargaining requires the accused to plead guilty, usually resulting in a lesser punishment. Value should be taken in account in plea bargaining. Here are my following contentions.

  • When the accused plea bargains, he/she is still being given a punishment that he/she must serve.
  • A person confessing to their crimes and taking responibility should be taken in account.
  • There should be value in someone confessing to their crime, serving their time, and going back out into the world and try to rehabilitate themselves and change into a better person.


I will extend upon my case once the affirmative/pro has responded. Thank you. (:

yannikmarazia

Pro

I disagree because I killed a man once and I was looking at life, but I got a plea bargain and only got 30 years and now I am out of prison because I broke out. Don't tell anyone though I am in hiding. So I will describe what I did first I killed the man then I ran away. Then I got caught and went to prison. The first thing I did when I got there was dropping the soap. This really sucked. Then I dug with my hands through the wall in my cell and escaped. Now I am talking to you. DO NOT TELL ANYONE THOUGH I DONT WANT TO GO BACK.
Debate Round No. 1
coryglee

Con

Thank you, Pro, for accepting my debate challenge, which I will assume is an honest acceptance. Your argument seemed highly irrelevant and did not seem to be in a serious tone at all. I will still continue with this debate though.

In response to the Pro side, I would just like to say if they do not want anyone to find out that they escaped from prison, then maybe they shouldn't post it for the world to see. I would also like to state that if the Pro is lying and trying to joke about killing someone, being sent to prison, and escaping then they should not have accepted this debate challenge due to their immaturity.

For the chance of the Pro's life experiences turning out to be true then I would like to respond. If plea bargaining saved the Pro from having life in prison, then it supports my contention of someone being able to go out into the real world and changing their life for the better. If the Pro has actually escaped prison then they are criminals that maybe need to be sentenced to a life a prison because they cannot handle a deal that would help them get back into society and change for the better.

Next, I will support my following contentions:

When the accused plea bargains, he/she is still being given a punishment that he/she must serve.


No matter if it's the biggest crime or the smallest, plea bargaining still requires the accused to serve justice. Whether the punishment be life in prison instead of the death penalty, or a fine and probation instead of a year in prison, the accused still must serve justice. Merriam-webster's definition of justice states: The process or result of using laws to fairy judge and PUNISH criminals. Plea bargaining still requires a fair punishment. As a personal example, my mother was charged with the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamines. My mother accepted a plea bargain of six years, rather than a sentence of 11 years in prison. I talk to my mom frequently. Every day she feels sorry for what she has done, but she must serve a punishment. She accepted a plea bargain, BUT STILL HAS TO SPEND TIME IN JAIL and think about what she did for six years, every day. Justice has been sought, found, and now it is playing it's process.

2. A person confessing to their crimes and taking responsibility should be taken into account.

In the plea bargaining process, it is legal for a judge to rule a decision on sincerity of plea and apology. A person confessing to their crimes, in my opinion, is a mature and honorable thing to do. Look at the high-profile cases that have happened; Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony, Brett Seacat. All of the defendants have had a narcissistic characteristic about them, thinking that a jury would acquit them (Casey WAS, in fact, aquitted) and they did not take a plea bargain. In a plea bargain, the accused, a number of times, know that they are going to get convicted. This could mean they do not have the mind set that they're going to get away with a crime. In this case, justice if found because they're still being sentenced and they also are doing the right thing and confessing to their crime.

3. (Rewording my third contention) It should be valuable that someone would have the chance to get rehabilitated and go back into the world to become a better person.

With someon who has a plea bargain, they confessed to their crimes and they also have to think about what they have done, while still serving a punishment. A lot of prisons offer rehabiliation and drug recovery programs. With this, they have the chance to get help and go back into civilization. They have the opportuniy to get treated and function in a better way, which is important.

If the Pro would like, I would be happy to end upon my third contention in the rebuttals.

I am looking forward to seeing the Pro's response. I have nothing further at the moment.

yannikmarazia

Pro

yannikmarazia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
coryglee

Con

Because of my partner forfeitting round two, I have nothing further to respond to. Because of this circumstance, I will restate my points along with the resolve and wrap up my case.

Main Points

RESOLVE: That plea bargaining in American criminal courts fails to achieve justice.
  1. When the accused plea bargains, he/she is still being given a punishment that he/she must serve.
  2. A person confessing to their crimes and taking responsibility should be taken in account.
  3. It should be valuable that someone would HAVE THE CHANCE to get rehabilitated and go back into the world to become a better person.


As the con/negative, the Pro has the burden of proof for this debate. The Pro's job was to explain and proove why plea bargaining in american criminal courts fails to achieve justice. The pro's job was not sufficiently done. As a matter of fact, the Pro provided zero support why plea bargaining does not achieve justice. The Pro stated that he/she killed someone, was sent to prison, got a plea bargain instead of life in prison, and escaped prison. The pro's argument was highly irrelevant and the truthfulness was questionable. Because the burden of proof lies with the Pro and they provided no support or relevancy, I ask for readers to vote in favor of the con. Thank you and I thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate. :)

yannikmarazia

Pro

yannikmarazia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by coryglee 3 years ago
coryglee
Sorry for the typos.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
corygleeyannikmaraziaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO forfeited two rounds, so pretty much everything goes to CON. Even in the one round PRO argued, it was a troll argument, whereas CON built solid arguments that were never addressed. CON wins.