Topic: Plea bargaining is unjust
affirmative:
-compromising the defendant's sentence is unfair (same crime may have two different punishments)
-provides a motivation for criminal to lie about involvement of others
-not a fair chance (not everyone is offered a plea bargain)
-too many options to insure justice in every case (it's better to have people in jail with too long of a sentence than with one too short)
-victim has already had choice in deciding whether to do crime or not (does not deserve another one)
negative:
-saves money and time for courts (can allocate resources for important cases)
-could provide information about involvement of others (lead to more justice)
-reward for remorseful defendants
-gives them an option (everyone makes mistakes)
-better to have guilty people on a shorter sentence than guilty people going free
so... if you have articles or ideas or speeches post them in response to this!
17 comments:
Here's what I have so far- I think I did it right, but please check and edit it.
Plea Bargaining is Unjust: First Affirmative Speech:
In the United States, a person charged guilty of a crime may be given the choice to proceed with a trial, or take a plea bargain. Plea bargains are unjust. They compromise the defendant’s sentence, provide a motivation for a criminal to lie, do no provide a fair chance to everyone, and have too many options to ensure injustice in many cases.
Plea bargains comprise the defendant’s sentence. If a regular trial were to happen, and the person is found guilty, their punishment would be more sever than if they had pleaded guilty. Do we really want criminals to get off easy so they can go back to committing crimes sooner? Criminals shouldn’t receive any lesser of a punishment for just coming out and saying they are guilty, instead of a judge or jury come to the same conclusion.
Plea bargains also provide a motivation for the criminal to lie. If a person is guilty of more than one crime, they may take a plea bargain, which only involves one crime, and their other crimes will go unnoticed. This may cause the police or other investigators in the case to follow a false trail, and believe the wrong things. If they were to have a normal trial, these crimes would most likely be discovered, and the criminal would get a bigger sentence. With a plea bargain, criminals may lie about where they were and what happened, so that they can successfully take the plea bargain. Criminals want to avoid the worst punishment for their case, so if it means taking a plea bargain that isn’t true, they will. Criminals should have a normal trial to avoid obstruction of facts.
Plea bargains do not provide a fair chance for everyone. Not all people accused of a crime are offered a plea bargain. Two people may commit similar crimes, but one may receive a plea bargain and the other not. The person who does, will not have to go through as much work, and not have a longer sentence. A normal trial provides a fair chance to everyone to prove their case.
Finally, plea bargains insure injustice in too many cases. For instance a person may lie to receive the lesser sentence. An innocent person may have a lot of evidence incriminating them, and agree to take the plea bargain since it would provide a lesser sentence. An innocent person does not deserve to be punished, so of course they will take the option with the less sever punishment. If the case is highly publicized, many people will believe that they are guilty, which is unfair to an innocent person.
A criminal has already had a choice in whether to commit a crime or not, and offering a plea bargain to them gives them a choice to decide again. People should not be allowed to receive a lesser sentence just for saying they are guilty or not. Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial, where all the facts are presented correctly.
hey betsy!
sounds good. i''ll look over it and edit. the other thing we need is sources: for each of these points we need a couple of examples. i'll also check on the length of the speech... i think it needs to be like 3 or 4 min.
Ok thanks. I saw Michael put his sources on his blog and I'll add mine.
here are michael's sources betsy and andrew who have yet to post all of the speeches they are writing!!
no i'm not angry you guys... just if i'm going to edit them then i need them!! so see if you can get them to me soon
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMN0307H-0-9070&artno=0000262807&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=Y
I can't write my second one yet becasue it needs to be based off of Andrew's first one.
Here is my first speech. Whoever is speaking for the justice of plea bargaining might want to edit mine as well. Sorry if I am posting them a little late but I couldn't access the internet earlier!
First Negative Speech: Plea Bargaining is Just
When debating whether plea bargaining is just or unjust, one must first look to the definition of justice. Justice can be defined as righteousness or equitableness. Using this definition, plea bargaining is just most importantly because it allows defendants to a speedy trial. Plea bargaining also offers defendants the option to go to trial, saves both the defendant and court system time and money, and gives a person the opportunity to be rehabilitated into society.
In the Constitution of the United States of America, the sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”. Plea bargaining offers a defendant a shorter trial because when accepting a plea bargain, the defendant accepts a sentence and does not have to wait for a trial. Therefore because plea bargaining allows a defendant a shorter trial, it is just according to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Plea bargaining is also just because it saves the defendants and court system time and money. According to the Leader Times, a Pittsburgh based newspaper, “The cost to prosecute a Parks Township man accused in the starvation death of his young daughter is expected to reach well into six digits…” Armstrong County Commissioner Rich Fink estimates that this trial could cost as much as $250,000. This is a significant amount of money for Pittsburgh’s Armstrong County court system to spend. Likewise, costs for defendants can be quite large as well. The 'Lectric Law Library states that the cost of a lawyer can be $100 per hour. This does not include filing fees or attorney fees either. Many people and some court systems can not afford these costs. It is only fair to give them an opportunity to avoid them by offering the defendant a plea bargain.
A third reason that plea bargaining is just is because it gives defendants a chance to be rehabilitated into society. In the case of a 16 year old boy who pled guilty to rape, he was offered 20 years in prison verses 3 life sentences. As stated by the Palm Beach Post, the boy “wants a chance to have a family is released”. Citizens should be allowed the opportunity to become a good standing member of society after they have served their fair time. A plea bargain gives a defendant the chance to serve a shorter sentence and have an opportunity to live their lives. Everyone makes mistakes, so by giving a person the chance to rebuild their lives, there are given a second chance.
The factor that secures the justice or fairness of plea bargaining is the choice that the defendant has. If they want the justice of a speedy trial, saving money, or a second chance to establish a life in society, then the defendant can accept their plea bargain. However if the defendant knows they are innocent, then they can go to trial and have their case reviewed in court. These are the reasons why we believe plea bargaining is just.
Second Negative Speech
*This speech depends a lot on what the opposition says in their two speeches
If the affirmative side says that plea bargaining provides motive for the defendant to lie:
Plea bargaining may not have the defendant plead guilty to the most serious crime that they are guilty of but they defendant still must plead guilty to a very serious crime. In the case of the Michael Vick case, the Palm Beach Post reports that “He [Michael Vick] also avoids the certainty of more serious charges, including racketeering, in a superseding indictment from a grand jury that convened Monday. Still possible, however, is the prosecution by the state of Virginia on animal cruelty charges that could carry up to 40 years in state prison”. This shows that a plea bargain may not have a defendant plead guilty to the most serious charges but that does not mean that the defendant is lying about the charges they are pleading guilty to. If the defendant is innocent, they may lie in order to avoid the money and time involved in trial but they still help themselves by avoiding that time and money involved in court. This may be more beneficial to the person than getting free and spending the money for trial. Therefore a plea bargain does not necessarily make a person lie.
If the affirmative side says that plea bargaining shouldn’t allow for a second chance:
Why should people not be allowed a second chance? Everyone makes mistakes including each and everyone of us. Plea bargaining allows people a second chance to rebuild their life but it also forces people to serve their due time. People deserve a second chance but also need to serve time for their mistake. For this reason, plea bargaining is just.
If the affirmative side argues that plea bargaining doesn’t give everyone a fair chance:
Plea bargains are not given to everyone, but in some cases attorneys believe defendants may not be deserving of a plea bargain. It is up to the attorneys and whether or no they agree on a plea bargain. One cannot control what the attorneys decide, but the option to agree on a plea bargain should be available. If plea bargains were available to everyone, there would be no need for a court system. Everyone may not get a plea bargain but the defendants still have a fair chance when they go to trial. Therefore, plea bargaining is as fair as the attorneys make it.
If the affirmative side argues that plea bargaining has two different punishments for the same crime:
Different punishments for the same crime can also be seen in the court system. For example if a man murders his wife, they can be charged for different degrees of murder. Therefore plea bargaining does not differ from a trial in this manner.
I have to leave at 4 and won't be home until 8 so I'll finish and post my second one then.
Is someone writing the cross exams, rebuttals, and summaries based on the speeches?
thanks you guys. we'll probably be good now... i can do the editing. i'll post on michael's blog and maybe he can jot down the notes for the rebuttals and the summaries.
thank you thank you thank you thank you for posting!!
sarah
Here's my second. The intro and conclusion need to be edited. Thanks!
Plea Bargaining is Unjust Second Affirmative Speech
Although many points are made for plea-bargaining being just, there are many more points that make it unjust. While plea bargaining allows the defendant to a speedy trial, it can lead to important facts being over-looked. While it may save the defendant and government time and money, plea bargaining does not provide an equal chance to everyone. It may give people a chance to be rehabilitated into society, but criminals should be in jail, not roaming the streets.
Yes, plea bargaining allows the defendant a speedy trial. This is helpful for those who are innocent. However, all speedy trials accomplish for criminals is getting them off easier. Since the case will not be investigated as thoroughly as a normal trial, many important details will be missed. Since the defendant knows that they will only be questioned enough to meet the charge of the plea bargain, they will most likely lie in order to prevent questioning that will uncover what they want to remain unknown in order to get the plea bargain. The case may never be solved, or police will be led down a wrong trail. Another person and innocent person may be accused of the criminal's unknown actions, and be punished for them. This is very unjust, and ruins the whole purpose of the justice system.
Also, plea bargains do save the defendant government more time and money, however, they do not provide an equal chance to everyone. Every criminal has already made the choice to commit a crime, so they don’t deserve a second chance. Also, not everybody is offered a plea bargain, even two people who committed the same crime. Nobody deserves a plea bargain, except perhaps those who are innocent. There is no way to know if a person is guilty or innocent without a fair trial. Although plea bargains are a time and money saver, it isn't fair to compromise a criminal's sentence for a few extra hours, and a few extra dollars.
Plea bargaining can allow some criminals to rehabilitate into society. However, if a person is guilty of a crime, they should be punished, not able to take a plea bargain, and be free sooner. If a person really is guilty, which can only be determined through a normal and fair trial, they deserve to take the full punishment. If a person is not punished properly, they will not learn their lesson, and most likely keep committing the same crime. In more serious crimes, such as murder, the defendant is usually mentally ill, and should be kept away from society. People who like to murder others should be kept away from society, so they can't harm others. Plea bargaining allows dangerous people to be allowed back on the streets sooner, which only puts people at risk of being harmed.
A criminal has already had a choice in whether to commit a crime or not, and offering a plea bargain to them gives them a choice to decide again. People should not be allowed to receive a lesser sentence just for saying they are guilty or not. Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial, where all the facts are presented correctly.
Hi guys! These are my sources. Some of these I sited in my speeches and some I didn't. Sorry to post late again but once again I was without internet:(
1.)http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1323413601&Fmt=3&clientId=47945&RQT=309&VName=PQD&cfc=1
2.)http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/leadertimes/s_270084.html
3.)http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1389442561&Fmt=3&clientId=47945&RQT=309&VName=PQD
4.)http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMN0307H-0-4117&artno=0000156239&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=Y
5.)http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SMN0307H-0-4117&artno=0000262807&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=Y
6.)http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/
7.)http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cos79.htm
sorry im just getting to this but I havent been around all day. I read the speeches and they look pretty good ill change some of the things i want to sayon my own also is some one gonna print them out and bring them??
I'll print mine out but if anybody makes any major changes please print them out.
Can everybody just print out their sources/speeches/cross exams/rubuttals/summaries?
i know that no one will get this but i edited and printed all of them so don't worry about it. thanks for your group-ness!
sarah
sorry michael here they are:
Plea Bargaining is Unjust: First Affirmative Speech:
In the United States, a person charged guilty of a crime may be given the choice by the prosecution to proceed with a trial, or take a plea bargain. Most of the time, they take the plea bargain. Fewer than 10 percent of criminal cases are brought to trial. Plea bargains are unjust in that they compromise the defendant’s sentence, provide a motivation for a criminal to lie, do no provide a fair chance for all defendants, and simply create too many options to ensure justice in all cases.
Firstly, Plea bargains comprise the defendant’s sentence unfairly. If a regular trial were to happen, and the person was found guilty, their punishment would be more severe than if they had agreed to a plea bargaining offer. Do we really want criminals to have shorter or less harsh sentences so they can go back to committing crimes? Criminals shouldn’t receive any lesser of a punishment for just confessing that they are guilty, instead of a judge or jury come to the same conclusion. Either way, they have committed a crime that they deserve to be punished for, and this should not be obstructed for anything as it has before because of plea bargaining. One specific case would be the prosecution of the “Green River Killer” Gary Ridgeway, who killed between seven and 48 people from 1982 to 2001. Although his crime was perhaps one of the most heinous in the history of Washington state, he was offered a plea bargain and was not put to death, instead serving a lifetime sentence in return for information from Ridgeway regarding the deaths he was responsible for, because “Most of the families might never know how they died… unless he cooperated with authorities”(USA Today, Nov. 5, 2003). This man who had committed a horrific crime was let off on a lighter sentence for the sake of information, because of plea bargaining. Using sentences “as bargaining chips” is definitely not just: these people who have committed crimes deserve to serve their punishments.
Plea bargains also provide a motivation for the criminal to lie. If a person is guilty of more than one crime, they may take a plea bargain, which only involves one crime, and their other crimes will go unnoticed. This may cause the police or other investigators in the case to follow a false trail, and believe the wrong things. If they were to have a normal trial, these crimes would most likely be discovered, and the criminal would get a bigger sentence. With a plea bargain, criminals may lie about where they were and what happened, so that they can successfully take the plea bargain. Criminals want to avoid the worst punishment for their case, so if it means taking a plea bargain that isn’t true, they will. Criminals should have a normal trial to avoid obstruction of facts.
Additionally, Plea bargains do not provide a fair chance for everyone. Not all people accused of a crime are offered a plea bargain. Two people may commit similar crimes, but one may receive a plea bargain and the other not depending on the prosecution. This can be used by the government to direct the media to certain cases: if they want a case publicized, they will not offer a plea bargain. Considerations such as these do not deserve to be a part of the legal process. The person who does, will not have to go through as much work, and not have a longer sentence. A normal trial provides a fair chance to everyone to prove their case.
Furthermore, because of the finanacial and time advantage plea bargains offer the government, plea bargaining is creating the situation where people are coerced into “selling their rights” (Lynch). A disparity in severity of punishment, a difference of about 500% between taking a plea bargain and going to trial has lowered trial rates to below 10%. Plea bargaining, though technically a choice, forces people to give up their rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights through coercion. For example, many times security officers in Washington will find tourists with hand guns, unaware of the strict laws. Although they surrender them at museums, the gun will be confiscated and they will be arrested, to their surprise. If they accept a plea bargain, they are not required to serve jail time. However, if they request a trial, the additional charges such as illegal ammunition will be added on. Does this seem legal and just to you, the manipulation of sentences, or does it seem like coercion to forfeit our legally protected rights?
Finally, plea bargains insure injustice in too many cases. For instance a person may lie to receive the lesser sentence. An innocent person may have a lot of evidence incriminating them, and agree to take the plea bargain since it would provide a lesser sentence. An innocent person does not deserve to be punished, so of course they will take the option with the less sever punishment. If the case is highly publicized, many people will believe that they are guilty, which is unfair to an innocent person. As previous attorney general Ashcroft stated, “federal prosecutors nationwide have an obligation to be fair, uniform, and tough” (KRT Newspapers).
A criminal has already had a choice in whether to commit a crime or not, and offering a plea bargain to them gives them a choice to decide again. People should not be allowed to receive a lesser sentence just for saying they are guilty or not. Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial, where all the facts are presented correctly. Either plea bargaining should be outlawed completely or a code should be drawn up where only cases in which the crime is deemed insignificant can it be offered, and in those crimes every case should be offered a plea bargain.
Plea Bargaining is Unjust Second Affirmative Speech
Although many points are made for plea-bargaining being just, there are many more points that make it unjust. While plea bargaining allows the defendant to a speedy trial, it can also lead to important facts being over-looked, ones that may link the defendant to other crimes. While it may save the defendant and government time and money, plea bargaining does not provide an equal chance to everyone. It may give people a chance to be rehabilitated into society, but criminals should be in jail, not roaming the streets. Plea bargaining may be speedy, but it does not allow the defendant a trial at all, causing them to forfeit their rights, protected in the Bill of Rights. Additionally, in the case of a criminal, all that speedy plea bargains cause is lightened setences for guilty partys that may be a danger to society, as has already been shown. Since the case will not be investigated as thoroughly as a normal trial, many important details could be missed. Because the defendant knows that they will only be questioned enough to meet the charge of the plea bargain, they might lie regarding their involvement in more serious crimes. Cases may never be solved if police are led down a wrong trail due to lying because of plea bargaining, effectively costing the government money instead of saving it. Also, although plea bargains do save the defendant government more time and money, they do not provide an equal chance to everyone, and in terms of justice fairness ranks much more important that amount of time or money spent. Every criminal has already made the choice to commit a crime, so they don’t deserve a second chance. Also, not everybody is offered a plea bargain, even two people who committed the same crime. Nobody deserves a plea bargain, and if they are innocent it is their right to be able to defend themselves in a trial. There is no way to know if a person is guilty or innocent without a fair trial. Although plea bargains are a time and money saver, it isn't fair to compromise a criminal's sentence for a few extra hours, and a few extra dollars. Plea bargaining may allow some criminals to rehabilitate into society. However, if a person is guilty of a crime, they should be punished, not able to take a plea bargain, and be free sooner. If a person really is guilty, which can only be determined through a normal and fair trial, they deserve to take the full punishment. If a person is not punished properly, they will not learn their lesson, and most likely keep committing the same crime. Former prisoners have high arrest rates after returning to society. A Justice Department study of 272,111 state prisoners released in 1994 found that two-thirds of prisoners are rearrested within three years. After release, these offenders generate over 744,000 total arrests, 2,871 arrests for murder, 2,362 arrests for kidnapping, 2,444 arrests for rape, 3,151 arrests for other sexual assaults, 21,245 arrests for robbery, and 54,604 arrests for assault (Mulhausen, Heritage Foundation). In more serious crimes, such as murder, the defendant is may be mentally ill, and should be kept away from society, such as Gary Ridgeway, who described strangling young women as his “career” (karisable.com). People who like to murder others should be kept away from society, so they can't harm others. Plea bargaining allows dangerous people to be allowed back on the streets sooner, which only puts people at risk of being harmed. A criminal has already had a choice in whether to commit a crime or not, and offering a plea bargain to them gives them a choice to decide again. People should not be allowed to receive a lesser sentence just for saying they are guilty or not. Every person accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial, where all the facts are presented correctly.
First Negative Speech: Plea Bargaining is Just
When debating whether plea bargaining is just or unjust, one must first look to the definition of justice. Justice can be defined as righteousness or equitableness. Using this definition, plea bargaining is just most importantly because it allows defendants to a speedy trial. Plea bargaining also offers defendants the option to go to trial, saves both the defendant and court system time and money, and gives a person the opportunity to be rehabilitated into society with out much detrimental effect to their lives.
In the Constitution of the United States of America, the sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense”. Plea bargaining offers a defendant a shorter trial because when accepting a plea bargain, the defendant accepts a sentence and does not have to wait for a trial. Therefore because plea bargaining allows a defendant a shorter trial, it is just according to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Plea bargaining is also just because it saves the defendants and court system time and money. According to the Leader Times, a Pittsburgh based newspaper, “The cost to prosecute a Parks Township man accused in the starvation death of his young daughter is expected to reach well into six digits…” Armstrong County Commissioner Rich Fink estimates that this trial could cost as much as $250,000. This is a significant amount of money for Pittsburgh’s Armstrong County court system to spend. Likewise, costs for defendants can be quite large as well. The 'Lectric Law Library states that the cost of a lawyer can be $100 per hour. This does not include filing fees or attorney fees either. Many people and some court systems can not afford these costs. It is only fair to give them an opportunity to avoid them by offering the defendant a plea bargain. Additionally, the money that the prosecution, often the government, saves in trials such as the case of Michael Vick, in which a dog fighting ring was found on his premises, could be re-allotted to the benefit of more important cases.
A third reason that plea bargaining is just is because it gives defendants a chance to be rehabilitated into society. In the case of a 16 year old boy who pled guilty to rape, he was offered 20 years in prison verses 3 life sentences. As stated by the Palm Beach Post, the boy “wants a chance to have a family is released”. Citizens should be allowed the opportunity to become a good standing member of society after they have served their fair time. A plea bargain gives a defendant the chance to serve a shorter sentence and have an opportunity to live their lives. Everyone makes mistakes, so by giving a person the chance to rebuild their lives, there are given a second chance.
The factor that secures the justice or fairness of plea bargaining is the choice that the defendant has. If they want the justice of a speedy trial, saving money, or a second chance to establish a life in society, then the defendant can accept their plea bargain. However if the defendant knows they are innocent, then they can go to trial and have their case reviewed in court. These are the reasons why we believe plea bargaining is just.
Second Negative Speech
*This speech depends a lot on what the opposition says in their two speeches
If the affirmative side says that plea bargaining provides motive for the defendant to lie:
Plea bargaining may not have the defendant plead guilty to the most serious crime that they are guilty of but they defendant still must plead guilty to a very serious crime. In the case of the Michael Vick case, the Palm Beach Post reports that “He [Michael Vick] also avoids the certainty of more serious charges, including racketeering, in a superseding indictment from a grand jury that convened Monday. Still possible, however, is the prosecution by the state of Virginia on animal cruelty charges that could carry up to 40 years in state prison”. This shows that a plea bargain may not have a defendant plead guilty to the most serious charges but that does not mean that the defendant is lying about the charges they are pleading guilty to. If the defendant is innocent, they may lie in order to avoid the money and time involved in trial but they still help themselves by avoiding that time and money involved in court. This may be more beneficial to the person than getting free and spending the money for trial. Therefore a plea bargain does not necessarily make a person lie.
If the affirmative side says that plea bargaining shouldn’t allow for a second chance:
Why should people not be allowed a second chance? Everyone makes mistakes including each and everyone of us. Plea bargaining allows people a second chance to rebuild their life but it also forces people to serve their due time. People deserve a second chance but also need to serve time for their mistake. For this reason, plea bargaining is just.
If the affirmative side argues that plea bargaining doesn’t give everyone a fair chance:
Plea bargains are not given to everyone, but in some cases attorneys believe defendants may not be deserving of a plea bargain. It is up to the attorneys and whether or no they agree on a plea bargain. One cannot control what the attorneys decide, but the option to agree on a plea bargain should be available. If plea bargains were available to everyone, there would be no need for a court system. Everyone may not get a plea bargain but the defendants still have a fair chance when they go to trial. Therefore, plea bargaining is as fair as the attorneys make it.
If the affirmative side argues that plea bargaining has two different punishments for the same crime: Different punishments for the same crime can also be seen in the court system. For example if a man murders his wife, they can be charged for different degrees of murder. Therefore plea bargaining does not differ from a trial in this manner.
Post a Comment