The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Should plea bargains be abolished in the United States?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 110708
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)




Why should we ban plea bargaining? I will prove the reasoning for this and as my opponent, you will prove why we shouldn't (pretty self-explanatory). We will also have three competitive rounds which will each encompasses points brought into discussion and rebuttal of statements on the opposing side. So, will you accept?

My first argument and defining terms:

Plea bargaining is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “the negotiation of an agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant is permitted to plead guilty to a reduced charge.”Since the resolution questions the legitimacy of an aspect of the criminal justice system, the value is justice, defined as giving each their due. In the resolution, the actor is the United States, or more specifically its government since it has jurisdiction over the country and the criminal justice system. As observed by John Locke, we come forth from a state of nature to form a government in order to better ourselves through the contractual agreement. In exchange for the loss of some autonomy from the state of nature, governments are tasked to properly arbitrate the rights of the citizenry. Because the fundamental purpose of governments is the protection of rights, the value criterion by which justice must be upheld is the defense of individual rights.

Contention 1: Plea bargaining hurts the innocent.

Through the practice of plea bargaining, the innocent are harmed. The Loyola Law School explains that “defendants who wish to secure the bene@257;t of a plea bargain routinely are compelled to admit factual guilt to do so… innocent persons will sometimes be induced to plead guilty through the practice of plea bargaining.” Statistics show the ever-rising numbers of innocent convictions in the status quo. The National Registry of Exonerations states that “2016 set a record for exonerations [innocent people identified and released from prison] in the United States.” The Marshall Project also reports that the “overall rate for [innocent convictions] as a whole is between 2 percent and 8 percent.” and “With over 2.2 million people in American prisons that is a haunting amount of injustice.” This means that there are upwards of 44,000 and as much as 176,000 innocents serving time. These confessions are a clear sign of a fault in the plea bargaining system, since, according to the New York Times, bargains accounts for “97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases.” The reason behind why so many people are falsely convicted as a result of pleading guilty is described by Jed Rakoff through USC News. “‘Plea bargains have led many innocent people to take a deal,’ Rakoff said. ‘People accused of crimes are often offered five years by prosecutors or face 20 to 30 years if they go to trial.’” This deal of shrinking sentences manages to compel many innocent people to take jail time for things they didn’t do, out of fear of going on trial and receiving harsher punishments. Thus, the plea bargain fails to protect the individual rights of the innocent. Because of this, the abolition of plea bargaining is a legitimate action by which to uphold justice.


Unfortunately I only have about 30 minutes to create an argument I had no time to research. I hope my opponent can forgive my less than stellar though adequate in this circumstance performance.

1. Innocent people will admit to guilt to get the benefits of a plea bargain.

I concede that this is true to a certain extent though not as bad as my opponent would have you believe. The question is do the benefits of having guilty people also do this, outweigh the harm caused.

There are different levels of injustice we should keep in mind before continuing the debate. A person who is falsely found guilty of murder being sentenced to several years in prison is a worse injustice than somebody who plea bargains a speeding ticket because he has better things to do with his time and merely gets a small fine and no criminal record.

Besides levels of injustice involved in false convictions, the voters should also consider the injustice of false exonerations, and how they play out. A person who plea bargains down a murder charge that they may have beat in court has faced some justice in areas where they may have faced no justice.

Besides the injustice of a guilty person going free and posing a greater threat to society, there is injustice to the victims of many violent crimes. It"s a fact that without the ability to plea bargain many crimes would go unsolved.

2. False convictions

My opponent falsely concludes that the 2% of prisoners being innocent stat he used is a result of plea bargains. The stat is taken by using a subset of exonerations and his sources once you read him doesn"t support the ideal the people doing actual time are from plea bargains.

Most plea bargains when used by innocent people are used to avoid jail time a record and the fuss of a trial. I have personally committed a DWI, drove without a license, shoplifted, committed battery and have a squeaky clean record because I have successfully negotiated good plea bargains that involved me just paying fines. Had a been to court for any of those things I would have most likely lost my case, spent time in jail and paid bigger fines, and honestly if I were innocent I still may have been tempted to take the plea bargains to avoid the hassle of a trial, but paying token fines really wouldn"t have been a huge injustice.

Of the 149 exonerations listed in my opponent"s report only 65 were from guilty pleas. (Plea bargains). That alone would take the false conviction rate caused by plea bargains he listed earlier from 2% to 1%.

However we have to look deeper. Of those 65 plea bargains a whopping 42 of them came from Harris County Texas. This more than likely shows some other sort of system failure in Texas. Why are innocent people in Harris county Texas so likely to plead guilty to drug crimes? That is about 2/3 of the 1% falsely imprisoned due to plea bargains be caused by a systematic failure on the part of Harris County Texas, who likely has drug laws that are just way too punitive and an over zealous police force.

My opponent is talking a a problem that only happens to 0.33% of the prison population now. Reading deeper into my opponent"s second citation we can see that most false convictions caused by plea bargains (of the people in prison) come from false confessions.

So is the problem really plea bargains or is it in the way police conduct interrogations? The police typically use the REID technique to get confessions from suspects. The REID technique allows officers to lie about the evidence they have, make threats that people will receive harsh punishment for not confessing and allow them to falsely state if they confess, that they"ll be able to go home.

My opponent would have us get rid of plea bargaining to solve the problem of innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn"t commit when it seems like getting rid of the REID technique would be more effective. Even if those guilty didn"t plea bargain the false confessions would have still likely gotten them prison time. So getting rid of the plea bargain would have served no purpose.

3. The amount of cases that are plea bargained is over 90%, causing all of those people to go to trial would put an immense strain on the legal system. People would have to quit their job because they would be on jury duty so often, the justice budget would increase 10 fold and the prison population would explode. We would also take a useful tool out of prosecutors hands that does help solve crimes or bring closure to families by making deals so a killer can lead them to a body.

4. Sorry about the haphazard style but very rushed having to do this without much study or time
Debate Round No. 1


My opponents first point mainly focuses on my claim of false exonerations and the common logic of people who have lesser crimes plea bargain to remove the punishment
(Flawed by same effects applying to murder and serious victims and having the idea of justice being served as false my opponent is supporting the idea that murderers should receive the same sentence as a person with a much lesser crime)

My opponent's second point is also about false convictions but by backing plea bargains he is contributing to the same falsehood if I provide further evidence his point cannot stand off of wide regard of my point being true
With a quick google search, you can see that all of these links provide knowledge that false convictions are extremely common meaning that people who actually committed the crime get away Scott free
(My opponent by debate standards cannot refute this point rendering their second point false based on the number of studies conducted backing up my point and my opponent simply referring to one study and making the assumption it is false

My opponent's third point has to do with the common misconception of putting the strain on the legal system when in fact the court actually has quite the ability to take this undertaking

According to The Harvard Law review the addition of approximately 25,000 court cases can actually be sustained, not only would we have the lawyers to work these cases but we will also have the judges. Currently on average federal court judges only see 12 cases per year, while federal judge Edith Clement from the fifth circuit court says that judges could easily see up to 40 or even 50 cases per year if need be, this would actually have a positive impact on multiple levels. Currently, more than 50 judges are inactive or see less than 4 cases per year so now it is not a question of whether we have the judges and the courts but do we have the skilled lawyers. “The national unemployment rate for law graduates has grown for the sixth year in a row to a whopping 15.5 percent!!” Most people agree that a lawyer is a highly skilled job however currently there are on top of these whopping numbers there are more than 6 million law graduate paralegals over the age of 30 that are capable of doing these jobs, arguably more capable after years of experience, however they can not get to this position because of a lack of law jobs. Joey Jackson of CNN states that The numbers of paralegals over the age of 30, 6 million, could easily sustain our legal system if plea bargains were abolished while still leaving paralegals under the age of 30 which makes up 60% of all paralegals which is more than enough. He finally states that this could be even easier at a local level. And in the process, we would be giving people more jobs and reducing the unemployment rate. Thus maximizing well-being

With this being a 3 round debate my opponent has further opportunity to respond thus I should be able to post further arguments

Contention 2: Plea bargaining is coercive

Sub-Point A: Prosecutorial empowerment

Ultimate power over convictions lies unchecked in the hands of the prosecutor during the plea bargaining process. According to the Loyola Law School, ”The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bar federal judges from participating in plea bargaining. Even in those states where judges are allowed to participate in the plea bargaining process, their role is restricted.” Not only are judges left out, but the Cato Institute also reports that by cutting the jury out of the picture, prosecutors… acquire more influence over case outcomes.” The fact that judges and juries are removed from the process threatens rights since plea bargains are effectively unchecked, which means that the defendant can be given higher sentence by the prosecutor without observance or interference by a judge or jury. Connect U.S. Fund reports that incentive to do so exists because “plea bargains allow prosecutors to take full advantage of accepting criminal acts in the weakest trials.” since “the more beneficial will be a guilty claim for the prosecution.” The SSRN also explains in further detail how the prosecutor can use their unchecked power to gain such an unjust advantage of influence over outcomes. “By assigning a fixed and narrow penalty range to almost every definable offense, sentencing guidelines often empower prosecutors to dictate a defendant’s sentence by manipulating the charges.” Since there is an incentive for the prosecutor to manipulate sentences and charges and little check on the bargain, it becomes coercive. Additionally, the impacts of prosecutorial empowerment are even more severe because of their racist implications. According to the NAACP, “In 2014, African Americans constituted 2.3 million, or 34%, of the total 6.8 million correctional population” and that “African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites,” meaning that in the current system, it is far more likely for an African American to receive a more severe sentence than a white person. The Washington Post further explains the implications of manipulation and its relation to racial bias. “Black men who commit the same crimes as white men receive federal prison sentences that are, on average, nearly 20 percent longer.” This means that although the charges were originally the same, prosecutors were able to manipulate them with the result of an unfair difference in sentencing. The inherent injustice of the plea bargaining system is clearly demonstrated through the unbalance of power given to the prosecutor in the ability to manipulate charges and defy justice.

Sub-Point B: Denial of due process

The use of the plea bargain is founded in the sacrifice of a fair adjudication process with the excuse of convenience. In plea bargains, the prosecutor pressures the defendant into acting dishonestly or unjustly, denying rights. PBS explains that “Plea bargain works by threat. What the prosecutor says to a criminal defendant in plea bargaining is, ‘Surrender your right to jury trial, or if you go to trial and are convicted of an offense, we will see to it that you are punished twice.’”The rights to a fair trial and due process are essential to giving each their due but are denied by plea bargaining. The Albany Review states that “The guilty plea cancels the presumption of innocence and becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt… by definition, the plea process is less true than the trial.” In addition, according to The Crime Report, “all that has been proven against [the defendant] is that a crime has been committed and that they ‘probably’ committed it.“ Plea bargains are not a defense of rights nor are they legitimate convictions: they are not determined by evidence nor due process. Because of the fundamental unfairness required for the current justice system to operate effectively, the only way by which to uphold individual rights and justice is the abolition of plea bargaining.




Pro"s first paragraph in this round is incomprehensible to me. I"ll respond to what I can comprehend though. It seems he is saying that because a lot of people receive no prison sentences for petty crimes such as possession of marijuana in small amounts it would mean a lot of people plea bargaining for more serious crimes such as murder may be seeing no time for murder because of plea bargains. I"ve seen no evidence to support this conclusion though.

I have heard of people plea bargaining to get out of prison using an Alford plea for example in the case of The West Memphis 3, but this is usually after they have had lengthy prison sentences and the state just wants to forego the high costs of trial that would likely end in an acquittal anyway.I"ve never heard of a John Wayne Gacy getting caught and plea bargaining his way out of prison. Not only do I doubt my opponent"s ability to bring me evidence of such a thing, but I doubt he can show me it happens often enough to even be majorly concerned about.

We still have a tool that can be used to secure deals for people who commit petty crimes and is not really capable enough except perhaps in rare circumstances be abused by people who commit serious crimes.


In pro"s second paragraph he brings up false convictions, once again equating a false conviction to being caused by a plea bargain, but he has ignored my arguments, dropping them and thus conceding their points. A false conviction is not the same thing as a plea bargain. In fact I showed that according to his own report: "Of the 149 exonerations listed in my opponent"s report only 65 were from guilty pleas.". So based on that fact alone we know that his report is misleading. I also showed that most of those guilty please came from a single area in Texas, showing a systematic problem in that area. When we have most false convictions centering around a single location, we should assume a major problem in that location and not apply that statistic on a national scale. I showed how the false confession rate was extremely high there, and I discussed the well documented problems with the REID technique used in police interrogations, and my opponent has dropped my arguments.

His points also assume that innocent people who plea bargain automatically would have been found innocent by a jury of their peers. This is false. These people I mentioned had already provided false confessions, and were likely going to be found guilty, it isn"t often that a jury ignores a confession. Knowing that most likely they would be found guilty and assuming the "Innocence Project" was not going to come along and rescue them, these innocent people still got a better deal by plea bargaining. I don"t think getting rid of plea bargains would have helped these innocent people at all, in fact it likely would have caused them to spend more time in prison.

An interesting fact is that most wrongful convictions are not the fault of plea bargains. False confessions are responsible for nearly all people"s false convictions (of serious crimes) that plea bargain, but of the ones who make it to trial it is most often eyewitness misidentification that causes it according to the innocence project.


My opponent argues that the system can handle the strain of a flood of new cases. He cites HLR without actually providing a link where I can verify the information but says "According to The Harvard Law review the addition of approximately 25,000 court cases can actually be sustained" However he is underestimating the size of this problem. There are 102.4 million court cases per year. If 90% of those cases are plea bargained than we are talking about adding 90 million cases a year. This far exceeds the capacity of 25,000 new court cases they can handle that he mentioned. If anybody has ever been to court over some small traffic thing, they can probably vouch that even with everyone in the room plea bargaining and merely setting court days, you still have to sit there for 4 or 5 hours and miss a day of work. Those courts could definitely not handle people opting out of plea bargains.

Pro says:"With this being a 3 round debate my opponent has further opportunity to respond thus I should be able to post further arguments"

Absolutely not. It is standard practice on this site and off site that new arguments are not allowed in the final round. I certainly do not consent to him disregarding this convention, and ask voters to ignore any new arguments he makes in R3. Typically in round 1 of 4 round debates, it is used merely for acceptance. Since arguments started in R1, this is essentially acts as a 4 round debate. My opponent has had sufficient time to argue his points and he has failed to utilize 100% of his character limit, so he could have added more arguments already but has failed to do so.

Pro: Contention 2: Plea bargaining is coercive

My opponent argues that the prosecutor has more control of the sentencing in plea bargains. This is true, but so does the defendant. The power swings from a jury or a judge having 100% control over a sentence to a prosecutor and a defendant sharing some control over it, so despite the fact that the prosecutor gains control, so does the defendant. My opponent also claims this means a judge loses all power over a fair outcome, this is untrue. Judges usually tell you before you plead when you and the prosecutor have agreed to a plea deal, that they have the power to reject the plea deal and ask you if you still want to move forward. So if a plea deal is unfair the judge can easily disregard it and give you an even lighter sentence.

My opponent is then under this headline bringing up racial disparities in sentencing but not linking them to plea bargains or showing how plea bargains are making the situation worse, for all we know juries and judges are even more racist than the average prosecutor and taking things out of their hand would increase racial disparities in sentencing. He hasn"t shown how black people are getting offered worse plea deals than white people. I ask the voters dismiss this argument unless he can somehow link the 2 things.

Pro: Sub-Point B: Denial of due process

It is self denial of due process. I"ve personally taken several plea bargains by prosecutors and have never once been threatened with more time if I don"t accept. They usually offer it with no strings attached other than you pleading something other than innocent. The last time I walked into a courtroom the prosecutor said hi, shoved a folder in front of me and asked if I wanted to accept what was on it or set a trial date. I said, "set a trial date". At the next trial date, they offered a better deal in the same nonchalant manner and I accepted. I voluntarily denied myself the "due process" because I thought it would turn out worse for me. If everyone in the deal is better off skipping due process, than I challenge my opponent to show the harm in skipping this so called "due process"


Plea bargains are good for defendants allowing them more control over their sentences.
It is good for courts by reducing costs and increasing efficiency.
It is good for victims by allowing them to get justice in cases that may have ended in a guilty person being found innocent.

Every segment of society benefits more from plea bargains existing than not

My opponent has dropped several of my arguments such as The Reid technique, his conflation of false convictions=plea bargains. That families get more closure through plea bargains that cause killers to take police to missing bodies and he has dropped that justice is served by more people seeing prison time due to guilty pleas that are guilty. He cannot add new arguments in the last round
Debate Round No. 2


My opponents entire first paragraph is ignoring the basic reality that I have presented evidence 5 pieces in fact all with links which you or my opponent can use they are blatantly ignoring the links (I have evidence) My opponent also has hypocrisy saying that I have no evidence of murder trials being ineffective when plea bargaining is in play and yet in the very next section of the same point says it doesn"t work...

I haven"t dropped any points my argument is falsely assuming this they haven"t been conceded nor should count as conceded if you read the points my opponent brought up in the first round they are rebutting my arguments not attaining new ones and if you want to see the refuting you can just read the top of my point in round 2. My opponent is also somehow equating plea bargains to no punishment like they are found innocent somehow...My opponent can also not defend against the recorded criminal history and societal effect which should be considered conceded. My opponent brings up eyewitness misidentification as the cause but he ignores the fact that this enhances the need to plea bargain....

I am not making new arguments in round 3 I made them in round 2 because this is how a damn debate works in methods such as Lincoln-Douglas and public forum...This is a common practice which my opponent just practiced this round

My linking in c2 is based primarily off racial disparities happening in plea bargaining I don"t know why my opponent thinks its doesn"t link when it is literally a study based off plea bargains

SubB is primarily rebutted with personal experience which shouldn"t be counted since we are considering a grand scale and this point could easily be a lie and my opponent ignores the evidence and misassumes facts when in fact due process bases itself off of:
-Inability for fair trial
-No jury of peers
-my opponent has also never presented evidence of worse sentencing with non plea bargains they haven"t showed that and can"t by their standard present it in r3 thus we can assum trials and plea bargains bear the same punishment

- Points brought up in R2 have been dropped because my opponent hasn"t properly addressed them
- Opponent ignoring grand scale
- Not accepting my rebuttals taking place
- Hypocrisy throughout

-Public Defenders
-Court Clog rebuttal which takes out most of my opponents case of trials being ineffective
-R1 argument can"t stand as my opponent ignored by rebuttals
SubB and C2 both dropped my opponent based off of misunderstanding of evidence


Thank you, Sean, for a great debate.
I will now summarize my case and demonstrate to you, the voter, that a Con vote is wise.
Debate summary.

Smart people will remember my point made about different levels of injustices. Murder is a far worse injustice than a speeding ticket, yet Pro bundles both groups together, in order to manipulate statistics to his favor. So whilst the people can be annoyed by incorrectly receiving speeding tickets, this is hardly the travesty Pro would have you assume. This mitigates Pro's contention to the point of being weak.

However, smart people will also remember the fact that without plea bargains, many murder cases would simply go unresolved, which is an actually serious crime, as opposed to a minor speeding ticket. This is not to mention many other violent crimes, often of which are hard to prove, hence many criminals are exonerated incorrectly.

The opponent's objection ("Flawed by same effects applying to murder and serious victims and having the idea of justice being served as false my opponent is supporting the idea that murderers should receive the same sentence as a person with a much lesser crime"), is incomprehensible. This is the kind of writing which could be penalized with the Spelling and Grammar point. Also, from the little sense derivable from the opponent's point, voters should note that it is not supported with sources.

On this contention, you should vote Con because whilst it is annoying to receive a very rare, incorrect speeding ticket, it is far worse to let someone go whom comitted murder or a violent crime.

In this contention, we found that the opponent's study had many shortcomings, and that a false conviction is not the same thing as a plea bargain. Critical mitigation points are as follows:
* Of the 149 exonerations listed in the opponent's report only 65 were from guilty pleas.(Plea bargains). That alone would take the false conviction rate caused by plea bargains he listed earlier from 2% to 1%.
* Of those 65 plea bargains a whopping 42 of them came from Harris County Texas, which suggests that this county is an extreme outlier, therefore should be ignored. This more than likely shows some other sort of system failure in Texas. This, as we found, is due to punitive drug laws and an zealous police force (see my earlier REID technique point, which basically suggests that police lie and manipulate people in interviews, in order to force confessions, whether false or not).
* In reality, the opponent is talking about a problem that only happens to 0.33% of the prison population.
* Of that vanishingly small 0.33%, most of the false convictions are caused by false confessions. This fact render's the opponent's statistic on involuntary false convictions to miscroscopic levels, thereby nearly entirely mitigating his point.
Furthermore, in this contention, you should vote Con because my alternative strategy, getting rid of the REID technique, would greatly reduce the number of false convictions. My suggestion is superior in achieving what he wants to achieve (and was also dropped by the opponent).
Conversely, the opponent's suggestion of abolishing plea bargains would increase jail time overall, due to innocent people still being pressured by REID technique police to confess, but not having the sentence reduction of a plea bargain.
Thus, plea bargains should not be abolished, rather, the REID technique should be abolished " vote Con on this contention.
The opponent underestimated the size of the problem. 25,000 court cases (the opponent suggested, without citing his figure with a link) being able to be sustained is a relatively small number. As I cited, there are 102.4 million court cases per year. Removing plea bargaining will speedily fill up those courts, over-burdening the court system.
Due to the court system being unable to cope with such a sharp influx of court cases, you should vote Con on this contention, because the opponent's claim of the court system being able to handle the influx, is demonstrably not true. Keeping plea bargains would keep unbearable strain from our court system " vote Con.
Contention 2: Plea bargaining is coercive

The first of the opponent's points here is negated by the fact that whilst a prosecutor does have more control over sentencing, so does the defendant. The opponent ends up dropping this point. Therefore, Pro's case gains no impact from this point.

The second of opponent's points is negated by evidence demonstrated with my source. Judges are able to alter the plea deal, therefore it is clear that a judge has power over a fair outcome, thereby completely negating the opponent's point about the judge having no power.

The final of the opponent's points fails to link to the resolution. The opponent failed to demonstrate how black people are receiving worse plea bargains than white people, thus there is no reason to abolish plea bargains, thus the opponent fails to affirm the resolution here.

Due to none of these points gaining any kind of traction, Pro does not affirm the resolution via any of these points.

Pro: Sub-Point B: Denial of due process

Denial of due process was shown to have no real harm, and in fact, it was shown to have a positive impact. Again, by skipping due process:

* Everyone saves time (and, if you have a job, you're able to earn more money)

* You, as the defendant, save money

* You likely get a better deal, than compared to going through the motions via "due process"

Thus, due to the benefits of skipping due process, and no real harm being demonstrated by the opponent, you should vote Con on this contention.

Thank you again, Sean, for this great debate. Also, thank you, the voter, for taking the time to read this debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
I haven"t ignored any that I am aware of. You should take your time to research your arguments and to understand mine. If you had take your full 72 hours to craft an argument as opposed to sloppily rushing one out you may have stood a chance. I understand I have sloppily rushed mine out, but I"m among the best debaters on the site, I can do that and still perform great. You can"t do that and expect to beat a competent opponent.
Posted by Sean.McHale 3 years ago
Why have you ignored by rebuttals?

Also I can explain the evidence for you as you seemed to misunderstand it...
Posted by Sean.McHale 3 years ago
What was "sad"?

I was writing the rest while waiting for you
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
That was sad. Wow
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wow you responded fast.
Posted by Sean.McHale 3 years ago
Yep the arguments up
Posted by Sean.McHale 3 years ago
Yep the arguments up
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
You still here?
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Thank you
Posted by Sean.McHale 3 years ago
Woops the hyperlinks didn"t go through I will resend:
Merriam Webster ( )

Cont. 1
Hurts innocent people
Loyola Law School (Levenson 12) (

Innocent conviction rate
National Registry of Exonerations ( )

Innocent conviction rates
Marshall Project (Kane 14) ( )

Amount of plea bargained cases
New York Times (Goode 12) ( )

Why innocent people plead guilty
USC News (Silsby 14) ( )
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments.
Vote Placed by Varrack 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Comment #28
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con posed many of these points, I believe I would have come to the same conclusion regardless. Awarding points based on the following: Conduct: This remained quite similar throughout the debate. While there things became slightly heated surrounding the mitigation of points and dropping arguments, this is standard in debates. No slurs, no ad hominem, nothing outside the bounds of standard debating. Spelling and Grammar: Goes to Con. While slightly rushed in the first round, spelling and grammar seemed to fall apart slightly on Pro's side towards the end. Run on sentences, incoherent paragraphs, etc... Arguments: Both sides had valid arguments, but Con did a much better job presenting fluidly and breaking down his opponent's arguments where he saw flaws. Pro, while perhaps having valid arguments that could have been pushed with more time, did not perform as well. Sources: Also to Con. He pointed it out several times, sources didn't back Pro. Great debate overall!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.