The Instigator
birdpiercefan3334
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
pmagyar
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining for testimony is unjust.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,960 times Debate No: 3630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (11)

 

birdpiercefan3334

Pro

AFFIRMATIVE

I strongly affirm with the following resolution when it states;

"Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining for testimony is unjust."

My Paramount Value for this round is Justice, which is defined as giving each his due in a fair and impartial way.

My Value Criterion for this round is The Maximization of Rights, for I strive to obtain the most rights and forms of justice for all society. Raising the people's rights to the highest possible degree.

Contention I- Guilty Pleas by the Innocent Are Unjust

A. Innocent persons are often coerced into guilty plea, "Grenada Williams-Fisher [Southern U. Law School], SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, Fall 2005, states 'Many innocent individuals have been convicted of crimes they did not commit because they felt they had no other option other than to plead guilty. Sometimes the innocent are economically disadvantaged and will not be financially able to obtain the best defense possible. Many times prosecutors offer plea bargains to individuals they know are innocent, or do not have the evidence to convict, because of political pressure to have someone answer for the crime committed.' Plea bargaining does not allow the maximization of rights, for it forces the suspect to plead guilty, which takes away their rights for a speedy trial, as the prosecution would force the suspects to believe their rights are going away, as that they had been "proven" guilty already.

B. SK/A06.05) Steve Maich, MACLEAN'S, July 9, 2007, p. 60, states, 'Consider the case of Robert H. --an unidentified man whose case was first described in a 1994 paper for the University of Chicago Law Review by Albert Alschuler and Andrew Deiss. According to the authors, Robert spent six months in the early 1990s in an Atlanta jail without any formal charges before meeting with a public defender. On the day she met him, she told him he'd been charged with a felony, but if he pleaded guilty he could go home that day because of the time he'd already served. If he pleaded innocent, he'd be kept in custody for at least another year awaiting trial. Not surprisingly, Robert pleaded guilty. Only later did authorities realize that due to a bureaucratic error, he'd been mistaken for someone else and should never have been arrested, let alone convicted. In this situation, a suspect was unfairly influenced to believe that he was guilty, thus making him believe that he had no more rights. In this way, plea bargaining forces people to think they are guilty, preventing the implementation of rights.

Contention 2- Lenient Sentences For Criminals Are Unjust.

A. RETRIBUTION REQUIRES PUNISHMENT FOR ALL WRONGDOING

Russell L. Christopher [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Tulsa], FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, October 2003, states 'One of retributivism's most important principles is the duty to punish culpable wrongdoers. As Kant famously expounded, "the Principle of punishment is a categorical imperative, and woe to him who crawls through the windings of eudaemonism in order to discover something that releases the criminal from punishment." Hegel agrees that "it would be impossible for a society to leave a crime unpunished." Though some modern forms of retributivism conceive punishment to be merely permissible, the view that punishment of wrongdoers is obligatory remains the "dominant" and "standard retributive view." Thus, "the retributivist regards the punishment of the guilty to be categorically imperative whenever the opportunity to give such punishment presents itself." '

B. LENIENCY IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY IS UNJUST

Russell L. Christopher [Asst. Professor of Law, U. of Tulsa], FORDHAM LAW REVIEW, October 2003, states, 'Michael Moore suggests that the conception of retributivism as embodying an absolute duty to punish each and every wrongdoer precludes a retributivist from engaging in immunity bargaining. As Moore explains, "it might be thought that we rightly refuse to punish some guilty persons in order to be able to punish other, more seriously guilty persons - as when we give immunity, in order to extract testimony needed to convict the latter. How can the retributivist accommodate these practices, given that the retributivist regards the punishment of the guilty to be categorically imperative whenever the opportunity to give such punishment presents itself?"'

Contention 3- EFFICIENCY IS IRRELEVANT TO ISSUES OF JUSTICE

A. Plea bargaining is based on efficiency, not morality.

Steve Maich, MACLEAN'S, July 9, 2007, states, "Most legal professionals have come to grudgingly accept the system, warts and all. But that acceptance seems based more on practicality than principle. In 1975, the Law Reform Commission of Canada called plea bargaining "something for which a decent criminal justice system has no place." By 1989, faced with a system bogging down under its own weight, its position had completely reversed: "plea negotiation is not an inherently shameful practice," the commission concluded. Most legal professionals concede that rampant plea bargaining plays havoc with legal statistics, as defendants are routinely overcharged and end up convicted of lesser offences. Most even agree that prosecutors have too much leeway in the games they can play to extract guilty pleas, such as withholding potentially exculpatory evidence--a tactic sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. Still, they say, the courts would grind to a halt without plea bargains."

B. EFFICIENCY COULD BEST BE ACHIEVED BY LAWLESSNESS

Jacqueline E. Ross [Associate Professor of Law, U. of Illinois], THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, Fall 2006, states, '"Acknowledging that plea bargaining "is a more flexible method of administering justice" than traditional adversary proceedings and that "it affords a far greater range of alternatives than do most trial proceedings," Alschuler argues that "flexibility is ... an advantage that all lawless systems exhibit in comparison with systems of administering justice by rules."'
pmagyar

Con

First, an observation, the resolution presented is plea bargaining for testimony is unjust, not plea bargaining is unjust, thus any arguments which refer to the plea bargaining system as a whole are irrelevant to the debate at hand because it is only referring to instances in which a defendant receives a lesser sentence in exchange for their testimony in another trial.

Case

The value is Governmental Legitimacy because first, a government's highest duty is to be legitimate in the eyes of its citizens and second, the resolution evaluates the actions of a state.

The criterion is the Maximization of Social Welfare. This is the best criterion for 3 reasons. First, because the resolution is asking us to evaluate a government action the most resolution specific standard evaluates whether the agent of action is just in taking that action. Second, the government's obligation is to provide for what is best for its people, thus the only way to evaluate the legitimacy or justness of a governmental action is to evaluate its effects on the welfare of society. Third, individual claims of justice inherently conflict, making it impossible to judge the justness of an action on an individual basis.

A) Organized crime has a negative effect on society. James Jacobs and Ellen Peters explain "labor racketeers are out for themselves and their organized crime cronies, not for the rank and file. They promote themselves and their cronies to leadership positions within the unions, draw excessive salaries, sell out the members' contractual rights, and loot the pension and welfare funds. They show no interest in organizing and no interest, of course, in union democracy. Labor idealists who wish to democratize and strengthen their unions cannot succeed in unions penetrated by organized crime. … the taint of organized crime may partly explain the failure of the labor movement in the second half of the twentieth century to attract the energy and idealism of the younger generations…The status that the labor racketeers derived from their positions or associations with unions translated into political power, … Unions provided endorsements, workers, and campaign contributions to political candidates. In return, the politicians looked the other way when the union bosses lined their own pockets."

This has 3 impacts. 1. Corruption destroys unions because needed reforms are not able to be passed when the unions are controlled by crime rendering unions ineffectually. Thus it outweighs on magnitude because the destruction of unions and the rise of a corporate controlled economy will harm all people in the United States economically because unions are a necessary check on corporate growth and power. 2. Union members themselves are harmed because they lose valuable pensions and welfare funds that are necessary for them to remain economically competitive in society. The Northwest Labor Press(Feburary 2007) reports that 15.4 million Americans are members of a union, thus it outweighs on magnitude again because more people are directly affected by union corruption then by some possible flaws in plea bargaining. 3. Labor corruption outweighs on timeframe because individual rights abuses take longer to filter through the criminal justice system than economic abuses.

B) Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is neccesary to combat labor racketeering. John Jeffries Jr and the Honorable John Gleeson explain "one characteristic of organized crime is that the most culpable and dangerous individuals rarely do the dirty work. Although the organization's leaders are ultimately responsible for its crimes, they typically deal through intermediaries and limit their own participation to behind-the-scenes control and guidance…their guilt usually cannot be proved by the testimony of victims or eyewitnesses or by forensic evidence. And they never confess…successful prosecution of organized crime leaders requires the use of accomplice testimony. It is therefore enormously important to federal prosecutors that a federal defendant can be convicted on the … testimony of an accomplice…The ability to rely solely on accomplice testimony, … allows federal prosecutors to bring charges in cases that are not so strong." Thus plea bargain in exchange for testimony is the only way to take down criminal organizations and solve for the harms in subpoint A, which is necessary to ensuring the maximation of social welfare and thus it is Just and you negate.

Aff Case

Off the value 1. Merge the values, just remember that because we are talking about governmental actions and we are not debating about a utopia, the round will be won by the side that is better able to provide Justice. Either side violates Justice in some way, the question is which does it least. This is confirmed by my opponents use of the criterion of maximization of rights, for they are evaluating whether or not justice is achieved through who protects more rights.

Off the criterion 1. You prefer max. social welfare because a government deals with more than just rights claims. 2. Even if this is the criterion for the round you still negate because only the negative allows the government the tools to combat organized crime. Organized crime violates far more rights than any rights violations if you negate

Off Contention 1 subpt A 1. Cross apply observation. It is impossible for innocent individuals to plea bargain FOR TESTIMONY because the only way they will have anything to testify about in another trial is if they were somehow involved in the crime. 2. It does not remove any rights from an individual, they still retain the right to a trial, it is their choice not to exercise that right

Off Contention 1 subpt B 1. Cross apply the observation 2. Any rights violation that occurred was an error of the prison or judicial system, not a result of PB, let alone PB 4 T. 3. It is only one example, so the negative still outweighs on a magnitude level by providing law enforcement the ability to deal with organized crime.

Off Contention 2 subpt A 1. There is no reason why the retributivist model is a Just form of punishment 2. There is no warrant in the evidence for why plea bargaining for testimony is unjust 3. TURN: If it is a categorical imperative to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, we ought use plea bargaining for testimony because it allows us to punish both the individual testifying and individuals they are testifying against. It would be unjust to ignore a tool that would allow us to punish more individuals 4. There is no impact to maximizing rights.

Off Contention 2 subpt B Cross-apply arguments above

Off Contention 3 subpt A 1. There is no evidence presented why a more efficient system is not a more Just one if it is better able to give individuals their due, if a system with PB 4 T protects more rights than one without it, it is Just and you negate 2. The evidence presented makes unwarranted assertions about overcharging and prosecutorial misconduct, without a warrant to back up those claims they are irrelevant, unimpacted, and meaningless 3. TURN: the evidence itself says the courts would grind to a halt without plea bargaining, which means only the negative can maintain a working legal system and only the negative can maximize rights, and you negate.

Off Contention 3 subpt B 1. The evidence assumes flexibility is the goal of plea bargaining and that that is why it is Just. That is an unwarranted assertion. A lawless system would do a far worse job of protecting rights, and there is no evidence here as to how that would actually be more efficient, or for why flexibility=efficiency. 2. Flexibility is important, it is nearly impossible to develop rules for every possible contingency, so allowing a certain degree of flexibility is important for the system to function. That is not the same thing as having no legal system at all. 3. The entire piece of evidence has no warrant, it is simply an assertion
Debate Round No. 1
birdpiercefan3334

Pro

Firstly, thank you, pmagyar, for taking this debate. I see you are familiar with LD form, and I will enjoy debating with you in this structured form immensely.

As a road map for the reader, I will first summarize and analyze the sole contention of my opp., move on to rebut my opp. points on my case, then finish off with a values debate, responding off the Value and Criterion we have each set and contested.

Everyone ready? Okay, here it goes: (Timer : 'beep')

I Affirm:

Opp. Negates

My opp. uses the arg. of plea bargaining is necessary for demolishing organized crime. He uses Jacobs, Peters, to exemplify the seriousness of organized crime, and specifies "labor racketeers", those who defile the labor unions and "use" them. He says the only way to stop these criminals are plea bargains, which help indict and convict other 'shills' through their testimony. This is my opp.'s sole con., about how the use of PB is great in magnitude to stop organized crime, like labor racketttering.

Now, I will refute--
Refutation of Con. I--

Now, as a def., I give white collar crime : A white collar crime is a non-violent act involving deception, typically committed by a business person or public official.

http://www.lawyershop.com...

I urge you to look at the link, for it will clearly define my arg.

Part of the def. is that whote collar crime consists of racketeering: the extortion of money by force or a pattern of criminal activity committed to further the interests of a criminal syndicate. (Same Link)

Now, if racketeering, which is what the organized crime my opp. is looking at, a form of white collar crime. Then, by reason, I will be looking at the con. as white collar crime (I will abbr. as WCC) because the utilization of a high profile union for criminal purposes of to further a criminal organization, is most certainly a def. of WCC.

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME DOESN'T JUSTIFY PLEA BARGAINS

Now to Justify this arg., I will place three cards, which shall show why PB cannot work, in three diff. ways.

1. TESTIMONY GAINED FROM PLEA BARGAINING IS UNRELIABLE
SK/A09.01) Steve Maich, MACLEAN'S, July 9, 2007, p. 60, Online, INFOTRAC, Expanded Academic ASAP. If Robert H. could be strong-armed into bearing false witness against himself, defence lawyers ask, why should we believe that someone like David Radler, choosing between the threat of life in a U.S. prison or 29 months in a cushy Canadian facility, wouldn't opt to bear false witness against someone else? These bargains are especially dangerous in white-collar cases, Langbein says, because formerly successful executives face an overwhelming temptation to tell prosecutors exactly what they want to hear. "The problem is, many of the laws these people are being prosecuted under are vague, and are not understood to be breaches of the law. Then the prosecutor comes along and says, I'm going to press charges and put you in the slammer--and in the United States, because of our sentencing savagery in such cases, that means forever and ever--unless, that is, you agree to incriminate yourself and whoever it is I really want to nail--whether that's Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling or whoever."

This quote shows that accomplices may rat out members not part of the syndicate, in order to receive the victuals of life in a 'facility'. Also, the prosecutor may be after a certain person, who may be innocent, but because a shady accomplice incriminates that person, he is automatically suspected. w/ out a trial, the innocent can be charged an convicted, by the word of a dealer who just wants to not hit the slammer.

2. THE TESTIFIER MAY BE MORE GUILTY THAN HIS TARGET
SK/A09.02) Ellen S. Podgor [Professor of Law, Georgia State U.], CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, February 2002, Online, LEXIS-NEXIS, p. 808. Particularly apparent is that in the white-collar context it is possible to have two contenders for cooperator status and the rightful or less culpable recipient may not be the one who ultimately receives the cooperation benefits.

The accomplice may incriminate a member, who may be a lower rank. Thus, as an ex., the boss may sell out a new member, when the member is not as culpable as the boss. This shows injustice, in how PB can lead to lesser sentences for more culpable criminals.

3. WHITE-COLLAR CONVICTIONS LACK DETERRENCE VALUE
SK/A09.03) Jamie L. Gustafson [Suffolk U. Law School], SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2007, Online, LEXIS-NEXIS, p. 688. Most judges and prosecutors recognize the utilitarian theory as the purpose of white-collar crime punishment. The problem with the utilitarian justification, however, is that empirical evidence of its effectiveness is inconclusive. The utilitarian argument of specific deterrence is problematic because corporate officers are unlikely candidates for recidivism. By definition, specific or special deterrence is "a goal of a specific conviction and sentence to dissuade the offender from committing crimes in the future."

It is unlikely that a WCC criminal can 'atone' for his/her crimes in WCC. PB utilizes a reward system, which can tell a criminal, specifically those who control syndicates, like in WCC, that they could incriminate to get out faster. Thus, every crime they commit, they know they can get out through the PB system.

In conclusion, my arg. to my opp. con., stopping organized crime does not necessarily mean PB is neccesary, for the criminals incriminate improperly, which you have even stated in your speech,

"And they never confess.." There is no evidence in your card stated how PB can cause accomplice incrimination. There is always the chance of corruption in the system.

that a crime boss may, in fact, get a lowly member out so they can walk free (releasing the most guilty to roam the streets.) and that WCC criminals may not even recidivise after their jailing, they may come back to WCC, as my card shows. Thus, my opp. con. falls, and you should start to vote affirmative. The magnitude of threat deserves a greater pun., not of PB, which utilizes flaws, as shown, but by a fair and legal system, which can incriminate and sends members to jail in a categorical way.

Onto refuting my AFF case arg. (I will use the format of I, A, B, II, A, B, etc.)

I. The word testimony could mean many things. it could induce a meaning of testifying on the court. The testifying could entail SELF-GUILT, OT INCRIMINATION. Testimony is not limited to convicting others, it could be convicting yourself. So, my opp. uses his kritik to cut off my con. I. while clearly, the innocent may be testifying AGAINST THEMSELVES (FOR THE DEF. OF TESTIMONY GO TO: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Thus, my opp. says my con. does not appeal to the resolution, while I have so shown that it does.
My opp. also says that my sub-B does not relate to PB, however, the fact that ROBERT WAS FORCED TO PLEAD GUILTY, OR ELSE HE WOULD BE IN JAIL LONGER AWAITING THE TRIAL, shows the mighty influence of PB. PB can influence so greatly, that it can be used as a threat, giving longer jail time for the innocent, and no jail for the guilty pleaders who are innocent. At least, not yet.

II. For my II., my opp. states I have not shown Retributivism as a JUST form of Pun. However, I have given this to show how PB cannot work in A CERTAIN FORM OF PUNISHMENT. I have shown that retribution is not used in PB, and that it could become hypocritical when PB is used. The notion of 'eye for an eye' goes back centuries, and it is a standard form of Justice. Also, my opp. does not understand Categorical Imperative. It is the fact that the ends must justify the means. (quality in action, a form of retribution), thus, the fact that criminals can get a lesser sentence than usual cannot give the means to the ends. The warrant showing PB, therefore, IS THAT IT IS HYPOCRITICAL TO RETRIBUTION FOR THE CRIMINAL DOES NOT GET HIS DUE OF A MAXIMUM PRISON SENTENCE.
pmagyar

Con

Value. We will use Justice, this is fine, I accept that it encompasses Govt Legit. I will show how the negative achieves this through the criterion. Also, extend my analysis about how nether side can achieve complete Justice, we are only looking for who better achieves it.

The two arguments made against my value are made in other places, so if the arguments fall there then they fall here as well.

Criterion. 1. My opponent misuses the value, claiming he has shown that the govt is not legitimate/justice has not been given to the people, and therefore social welfare has not been maximized. That is backwards reasoning, as we evaluate whether or not the value is achieved by looking at the criterion. If I show that social welfare has been maximized, then Justice and governmental legitimacy is achieved on the negative. 2. Extend the 3 justifications for my criterion, they are unaddressed. It is the best criterion because it is the most resolutionally specific, the governments obligation is to provide for social welfare, and individual claims of justice conflict. This is clearly the best way to evaluate the round, and as my opponent makes no arguments for why this is a bad criterion or why his is a better one, it is how we are evaluating the debate. 3. Even if you did use the Aff criterion, you still negate because organized crime harms far more rights than PB for testimony does, so the negative best maximizes rights and you would negate.

Aff Case

Off of I. 1. The only way you can have testimony is if it is presented at trial. An individual who accepts a plea bargain is forgoing a trial. It is therefore logically impossible for an individual to accept a plea bargain in exchange for testimony against themselves. Once they accept a plea bargain, there is no trial, and so there is no testimony to be given. The only way plea bargaining for testimony can work is if they are testifying against another individual. Any other interpretation is a highly abusive use of the resolution. If it was intended to be a debate about plea bargaining in general, the words for testimony would not be there. They are there to limit the debate to instances in which a plea is accepted in exchange for testifying against other individuals. I challenge my opponents definition of testimony. Wikipedia is not a valid source for a definition, it is impossible to know if the person who wrote that article is at all qualified. The counter definition, from the American heritage dictionary, is "A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body" 2. Extend that innocent individuals cannot accept a plea bargain FOR TESTIMONY because they would not have anything to testify about if they were not guilty of criminal conduct. 3. What happened to Robert was tragic, but it is a result of prosecutors ignoring his constitutional rights and has absolutely nothing to do with plea bargaining FOR TESTIMONY. There is nothing in the evidence presented to indicate the plea bargain was offered in exchange for testimony. That means it falls outside the resolution and is IRRELEVENT TO THIS DEBATE. 4. Even if it does apply, it is only one example of one person harmed by plea bargaing. This is vastly outweighed by the negative, union corruption can directly affect over 15 million Americans and their families.

Off of II. 1. Retributivism is but one theory of punishment, and if it is not a just one it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT if PB violates it because it is not a form of punishment we should be using anyway. Simply because we have used it in the past is not a reason that it is a Just form of punishment. If that argument is acceptable, then you automatically negate because plea bargaining has been used for a long time in the American justice system. 2. To say that we embrace that concept in the US is absurd, we do not rape rapists, torture tortures, or even kill most killers. 3. If my opponent is really presenting the categorical imperative as the "ends must justify the means" then you negate right here, for the negative vastly outweighs any harms with the benefits gained by dismantling organized crime. 4. The criminal is getting his due, there is no reason why that due is the maximum prison sentence. The individual did something bad, a crime, but they also did something good, they helped to bring other criminals to justice. They should be punished for the crime, and rewarded for the assistance. We reward them with a lesser sentence, this is what they are due, and it complies with Justice. Expert witnesses are treated the same way, except they are paid as they have no prison sentence to lessen. 5. Extend the turn, it is dropped. "If it is a categorical imperative to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, we ought use plea bargaining for testimony because it allows us to punish both the individual testifying and individuals they are testifying against. It would be unjust to ignore a tool that would allow us to punish more individuals" 6. Extend the last argument, there is no impact to protecting rights so the entire argument is useless.

Off of III. 1. A government changing their mind about a policy does not make the policy immoral, that doesn't follow. 2. The efficiency of plea bargaining is only the general plea bargain, where and individual pleads guilty for a lesser sentence, not plea bargaining for testimony, where the individual also testifies in another trial against one or more other individuals. 3. The prosecutorial misconduct was for plea bargaining in general, and you have not shown how it is applied in cases where it is plea bargaining for testimony, nor is there an impact to that argument so it is irrelevant. 4. There is NO WARRANT WHAT SO EVER for why the system will progress from using plea bargaining to chaos and lawlessness, my opponent drops my arguments for why that will not happen, and the turn still stands because plea bargaining may be the only way for the legal system to function, which means it is necessary to maximize rights, for without a legal system and a way to punish lawbreakers there is no reason not to violate anothers rights. It would also create a far worse society then with plea bargain, so it meets both criterion and you negate

To my opponents attacks on my case.

I will accept that the NC deals with a certain form of white collar crime, but it is important to realize that organized crime groups often deal in far more then just one form of crime.

In response to the first piece of evidence. 1. TURN: John Jeffries Jrand the Honorable John Gleeson explain
"many of these cases are nevertheless strong because multiple accomplices testify consistently about the criminal organization and the crime. In such a case, a murder charge may rest solely on consistent description of the details of the murder: the reasons for it, the order to commit it, the way it was done, and the disposition of the body."
"It is not unusual for a RICO indictment to include several murders as racketeering acts. Three accomplices might be called to testify about one or more of the murders, corroborating each other as described above. If one of those accomplices can testify to a separate murder in which he and a defendant participated, that murder will often be included in the pattern of racketeering activity...The prosecutor can then argue that one of the reasons the jury should believe the sole accomplice on that charge is because the rest of his testimony is so well corroborated on the other charges. Additionally, the prosecutor can argue that an accomplice who is unaware of the other evidence (or the lack thereof) has a selfish reason not to fabricate testimony. If the accomplice makes things up, his testimony could conflict with other evidence, and the trial judge, who usually will determine the accomplice's sentence, will see that he is a liar and treat him accordingly."
Continued in comments
Debate Round No. 2
birdpiercefan3334

Pro

For my final speech, I will go in LD form, Values, Neg Flow, Aff Flow, and lastly Voters.

I AFFIRM

Values
1)My opp. concedes to agreement that Justice is a higher value than Gov't legit. Please see this as a voting issue, as the opp. has now stated that his case does not lead to upholding his own value. However, he states he achieves my value better than i as a counter. However, this is not true. Firstly, let
us look at the various ways that it does not:
a)Justice is defined as giving each their due, my opp. concedes this, so the let's use this def.
b)My opp. does not give each their due. He states he gives every person their due, however, the fact that innocent persons get coerced illegally into guilt, and that there are those CRIMINALS WHO STILL GET LESSER SENTENCES. The fact that the system the NEG advocates lets criminals get off the hook, and that innocent persons are oft falsely convicted,states that Jsutice is nto given.
Therefore, my opp., not only drops his own value by concession, he also does not give Justice, as he tried to admit. Thus, for the result of no V for the NEG to UPHOLD, YOU VOTE AFF!

My opp also give Max. of Social Welfare as a Criterion. He states, for his counters, of that his criterion is resolutionally specific, and mine is not. However, the fact that he also states that the best criterion is one that provides best for the people. So let's go resolutional. Since Max. of Welfare sets up for, in this case, PB. However, as shown through my attacks, he does not provide for the best of the nation, as he conceded that giving each their due is the highest priority, by valuing my value over his. So, even though he was specific, it does not mean he provides the best of the people. My opp. DEOS NOT ADDRESS WHY JUSTICE IS DIFFERENT. HE DOES NOT GIVE OTHER DEF. OF JUSTICE, THERFORE, YOU MUST STILL LOOK AT MINE. FOR HE GIVES NO ALT. IN WHICH TO WORK. My opp. also states that Org. Crime allows for use of the Criterion better. However, the risks OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS, contrary to opp. arg's. COERCION, INNOCENCE GOING WRONG, AND THE ALLOWANCE OF PETTY, UNSTABLE, CRIMINALS TO LEAVE EARLY, DISPROVES THIS. My opp. also does not directly address why giving rights to all is bad. Therefore, with all these arg., the criterion, of which the case creates, is broken and hypocritical, thus, you vote AFF.

NEG.

FIRST OF ALL, my opp. offers a turn of my 1 card. However, this shows ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF A SYSTEM. RICO indictments are one instance, while the card I stated can happen universally. There are those systems where lawlessnesses occurs, as I have shown in my card. thus, his first turn is OUT.

For the second evidence I have given, he states just because it can happen, means abolishment is not the right way. However, the mere fact that there is a shred of doubt, is why you SHOULD ABOLISH IT. In a fair system, we must strive for perfection. Even, when there is a shred of doubt in a defendant's guilt during a trial, the jury is compelled to vote innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. Thus, we must strive to create what is overall correct, and just to the highest degree. Thus, his second arg. goes down. Also, there are situations were the police does not stake out a gang, as they often are hard to destroy.

The 3rd evidence my opp. counters with the fact that the future effects do not coincide with PB and the Negative situation. However, for the system of PB, this is an outcome. We must also look to the fact that PB could make this society one that could not function. The effects, or affects, of this are to great. Again, the risks outweigh the benefits. THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN DO MORE THAN THE NEG, contrary to the Neg., FOR A LONGER SENTENCE MAY GIVE MORE TIME TO RECIDIVISE, AS MY CARD STATES. ALSO, the reason why crime bosses can rat out lower members are because so that they can stay in the organization still, a common sensical idea. thus, my opp. arg. on my 3rd card dropes.

Also, the impact my opp. makes does not clearly show WHY PB IS JUST, is basically shows the reasons on WHY TO CONVICT!

Thus, for all the arguments have dropped, his cas is taken down, thus VOTE AFF.

AFF DEFENSE:

I. My opp. argues that you cannot testify against yourself, and that my def. is flawed. He gives a def.
I can offer a broader sense of the term the opp. gives, which is from the highly respected Merriam-webster's.
firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence b: an outward sign c: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Thus shows, the innocent may plead against himself, for the d\def. clearly shows a non-specifical term, of that the innocent may convict themselves. Look back to the def. Thus, his arg. to my sub-A is gone,a s it is not ABUSIVE.
For my sub-B. The whole point WAS NOT THE WAITING IN JAIL. Look back tot he card, which I will write down below an excerpt:
"On the day she met him, she told him he'd been charged with a felony, but if he pleaded guilty he could go home that day because of the time he'd already served. If he pleaded innocent, he'd be kept in custody for at least another year awaiting trial".

This excerpt of my sub-B shows the threat. Do you notice it? There it is. My opp. did not understand the point of my arg. without asking me. Thus, his unbased arg.s fall. HE WAS THREATENED WITH A LONG JAIL TIME BEFORE HE EVEN CONVICTED.

II. I offer Retribution as an example of hypocrisy. Retributivists are those who follow retributivism. These people are oft in the Justice system. To follow PB means that the lesser sentences do not connect with he heinous crimes committed. For this, nothing is just except the full pun. TURN: Look to the def. of Justice, which my opp. dropped. Giving each their due, is what then we must look as jsut. If that is what we look at, then retribution i s the clear form that we look at in this debate. My opp. does not give any other ALT>! My opp. gives a card which states a 2 in 1 is catergorically imperative. However, the fact that the 2 in 1 may not be just significantly shows that Categorical Imperative is not achieved. My point shows HOW THE OPP. DOES NOT GIVE MAX. OF RIGHTS. That is how it links to the case. Thus my opp. arg. drops, 2 co. stands.

III. The fact that it was a flip flop in favor of PB by the LRCC, shows that their support was not based on morality. I later bring up that it is immoral, because of the coercion. My opp. did not understand this. Efficiency is given in the 2 FOR 1 deal during Pb, so that gets rid of my opp arg. next. THE FACT THAT PB IN GENERAL ALSO CONTAINS TESTIMONIAL PB,and that PB for self-guilt are the same, SHOWS THAT MISCONDUCT CAN OCCUR ANYWHERE. I have shown tha efficiency can lead for leniency, which can lead to loopholes, damaging the JUSTICE SYSTEM, which IS LAWLESSNESS. My opp. did not see this. THE OPP> DID NOT SHOW HOW PB IS NECESSARY FOR FUNCTIONING, THUS HIS LAST ARG. FALLs, AND YOU AFFIRM.

Voters:
1) Concedes Gov't Legit, wants Jistice
2) Drops Justice Def., go with that
3) Still doesnt give J based on def., must Affirm
4) Does not see the welfare of nation, does not maximize based on def.
5) Does not argue Max. of Rights, drop.
6) Offers specific text throughout, i give broad terms and such.
7) AFF CAN FULFILL BOTH JUSTICE AND MAX. RIGHTS AND WELFARE.
8) Clearly does not understand heart of my con.

AND FINALLY< THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE RISKS (COERCION, INNOCENCE, MOST CULPABLE TO STAY OUT OF PRISON, LAWLESSNESS BASED ON EFFICINCY, AND ETC.) THAN BENEFITS< IF ANY, AS MY OPP> ARGUMENTS ARE ALL GONE.

For these reasons, you should affirm, thank you.

PMAGYAR, you are excellent, thank you for the debate.

Are you from Edina or Apple Valley, by any chance?

Look at my posts in the comments below to see my arg. form Roun. 2. THANK YOU!

I HAVE AFFIRMED.
pmagyar

Con

Values: My acceptance of your value has absolutely no weight in who wins, the value and criterion simply setup how the round is to be evaluated to determine who wins. Re-extend my argument that has been unresponded to that neither side can completely achieve Justice, and the round should be decided by whoever does that best. This is determined through the criterion. Ill deal with the b point under Values where the argument is fully made later on by my opponent.

Criterion: my opponent still makes no arguments for why my criterion is a bad way to evaluate the round. His only arguments are why the negative do not achieve that criterion, not why it's a bad standard. Ill address those issues later. Re-extend the three justifications for my standard. 1. It best evaluates the resolutional question 2. Providing for the welfare of society is the govt's job, thus it's the best way to evaluate the govt's justness 3. Individual claims of justice conflict, the only way to evaluate justice is on a societal level.

There is nothing wrong with giving all individuals rights however the aff has yet to show how they actually achieve that. Ill show how only a government with PB for testimony can actually protect rights and best provide for the welfare of society. Which ever side best provides for the welfare of society wins this debate.

Neg case:

1st piece of aff evidence: RICO is not a system, it's a law dealing with organized criminal enterprises. My opponent claims "there are those systems where lawlessnesses occur" but fails to provide any evidence of what those systems are or why they cause poor testimony to be given. 2. There is no reason why the reference to RICO means the argument does not apply to other cases as well. The testimony given is far more elaborate then person A did it, all of the details provided must mesh with what other witnesses testify to. The person actually has an incentive to testify truthfully because they often do not know if there are other witnesses, and it its usually the same court who decides how lenient of a sentence they receive for the testimony they give. If they give false testimony that is contradicted by the other witnesses and evidence, they will not receive a lesser sentence at allTHIS SHOWS THEY HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO GIVE TRUTHFUL TESTIMONY. 3. Even if you buy that this only applies to RICO cases, you would still negate because the harms of organized crime outweigh.

2nd piece of aff evidence: My opponent clearly does not understand how the Justice system works. A shred of doubt does not mean an acquittal. Guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt. He only responds to the 1st argument I made against his evidence, extend my 2-4 responses. "2. This is not how prosecutors would deal with RICO indictments, the more individuals they can turn against the upper levels of the organization the stronger the case will be against them and the more likely they will get convictions with long sentences. 3. Law enforcement usually knows who are the upper members of a criminal group are, or at least some of them. It is highly unlikely they would be fooled into thinking a lowly foot soldier actually was the one responsible for the crimes, so this won't happen. 4. The impact my opponent gives isn't related to either criterion, in order to claim its unjust they have to show that it doesn't benefit social welfare, for if it benefits social welfare it is just.

3rd piece of evidence: My opponents arguments here have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE HE OFFERED. Extend my dropped responses from above. (cant get them to fit here with the character limit, if you think my opp's argument has merit see my responses in Rd 2)

Aff Case

Off I. My opponent ignores my first argument about why it is impossible to testify against yourself in exchange for a PB, extend it. "The only way you can have testimony is if it is presented at trial. An individual who accepts a plea bargain is forgoing a trial. It is therefore logically impossible for an individual to accept a plea bargain in exchange for testimony against themselves. Once they accept a plea bargain, there is no trial, and so there is no testimony to be given. The only way plea bargaining for testimony can work is if they are testifying against another individual. Any other interpretation is a highly abusive use of the resolution. If it was intended to be a debate about plea bargaining in general, the words for testimony would not be there. They are there to limit the debate to instances in which a plea is accepted in exchange for testifying against other individuals." Also, Extend that innocent individuals cannot accept a plea bargain FOR TESTIMONY because they would not have anything to testify about if they were not guilty of criminal conduct.
B point: the example doesn't apply because there was no testimony involved, see above. The threat of jail time dealt with normal PB, NOT PLEA BARGAINING FOR TESTIMONY, ITS NON-RESOLUTIONAL

II. I do not have to show what philosophy of punishment is best to negate. If you want to show that PB is unjust under a specific system of punishment you need to show y that system is just, if its not then it doesn't matter if PB violates it. Also, re-extend the turn that's dropped. "If it is a categorical imperative to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, we ought use plea bargaining for testimony because it allows us to punish both the individual testifying and individuals they are testifying against. It would be unjust to ignore a tool that would allow us to punish more individuals"

III. "the courts would grind to a halt without plea bargains" That is from my opponents own piece of evidence, the turn still stands. PB is the only way for the justice system to function, which means it's the only way to protect rights and provide for the welfare of society.

I've responded to my opponents voters above where he actually makes and explains the arguments.

Here's why you negate.
1.The turn off AFF II. If we ought to punish whenever the opportunity presents itself, then we ought to use PB for testimony because it is a tool that allows us to punish more individuals.
2.The turn off AFF III. My opponents own evidence states the courts would halt without PB. This alone shows that the only way to have a functional court system is with PB. That means that only the negative has a way to actually adjudicate rights claim between individuals and thus protect people's rights. It is also the only way to prosecute criminals. The inability to prosecute criminals will lead to all the harms my opponent claims happen with PB.
3.The NC. The plea bargain is the ONLY WAY to prosecute the upper levels of organized crime. Without the PB, prosecutors will have nothing to offer to individuals to convince them to testify against their bosses. Without that, there will be nothing to stop the power or organized crime. This will lead to the impacts in the NC. 1. Corruption destroys unions because needed reforms are not able to be passed when the unions are controlled by crime rendering unions ineffectually. Thus it outweighs on magnitude because the destruction of unions and the rise of a corporate controlled economy will harm all people in the United States economically because unions are a necessary check on corporate growth and power. 2. Union members themselves are harmed because they lose valuable pensions and welfare funds that are necessary for them to remain economically competitive in society. It outweighs on magnitude because more people are directly affected by union corruption then by some possible flaws in plea bargaining. 3. Labor corruption outweighs on timeframe because individual rights abuses take longer to filter through the criminal justice system than economic abuses. This outweighs all the harms my opponent presents.
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
They vote by many reasons.

A) personal opinion
B) Who they agree with
C) Friends (or someone they don't like0
D) Arguements.
E) Who has the most votes, and by how many.

that is how I figured it to be.
Posted by pmagyar 9 years ago
pmagyar
I wish it was possible to know why people voted the way they did
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
ha! eagan. I debate at wayzata and they're one of our main rivals.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
EVERYONE. LOOK FOR PART OF THE PRO AND CONS ROUND 2 SPEECHES IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. SHOULD BE WAY BACK. I WISH THERE WAS A 10,000 CHARAC. LIMIT :)

PLEASE DONT ASSUME THERE ARE DROPS, AS ROUND 2 SPEECHES WENT ON TO THE COMMENTS SECTION, FOR BOTH ME AND PMAGYAR. PART OF OUR SPEECHES ARE IN THE COMMENTS. JUST LOOK BACK AND SEE.

You have to look back all the way to the beginning, and work your way down, or up, whichever. Please do not miss these arg.

REMEMBER< THEY ARE FORM THE 2nd ROUND!!!

Those who voted or will vote, post your RFD, if you may.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
EVERYONE. LOOK FOR PART OF THE PRO AND CONS ROUND 2 SPEECHES IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. SHOULD BE WAY BACK. I WISH THERE WAS A 10,000 CHARAC. LIMIT :)

PLEASE DONT ASSUME THERE ARE DROPS, AS ROUND 2 SPEECHES WENT ON TO THE COMMENTS SECTION, FOR BOTH ME AND PMAGYAR. PART OF OUR SPEECHES ARE IN THE COMMENTS. JUST LOOK BACK AND SEE.

You have to look back all the way to the beginning, and work your way down, or up, whichever. Please do not miss these arg.

REMEMBER< THEY ARE FORM THE 2nd ROUND!!!

Those who voted or will vote, post your RFD, if you may.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
Minnesota's fairly good at debate.

Chris Theis has got the goods.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
*whistle* you got a gigantic crew at your school. Granada's is small as heck.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
good debate, pmagyar. I enjoyed it immensly. You know, you are the first person i saw that could run this case. At USc, the Negative failed in running it. Great. I went undefeated at USC on PB, though I won't do that any longer!
Posted by pmagyar 9 years ago
pmagyar
Not apple valley or edina, i debated and coach at eagan. Same area.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
EVERYONE. LOOK FOR PART OF THE PRO AND CONS ROUND 2 SPEECHES IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. SHOULD BE WAY BACK. I WISH THERE WAS A 10,000 CHARAC. LIMIT :)

PLEASE DONT ASSUME THERE ARE DROPS, AS ROUND 2 SPEECHES WENT ON TO THE COMMENTS SECTION, FOR BOTH ME AND PMAGYAR. PART OF OUR SPEECHES ARE IN THE COMMENTS. JUST LOOK BACK AND SEE.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jerome 9 years ago
jerome
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by M.D 9 years ago
M.D
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gilroy 9 years ago
gilroy
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by geronimo 9 years ago
geronimo
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tecumseh 9 years ago
tecumseh
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pmagyar 9 years ago
pmagyar
birdpiercefan3334pmagyarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03