Lincoln Douglas debate

Robert Kennedy once stated “The glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the Constitution - nor by the courts - nor by the officers of the law - nor by the lawyers - but by the men and women who constitute our society - who are the protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law.”I think we as a society are protected by laws and we should do all we can to protects our laws. Which is why I negate the following resolution,Resolved: plea bargaining should be abolished in the United States criminal justice system. Plea bargaining is defined as an agreement between defendants and prosecutors where defendants agree to plead guilty to some or all the charges against them in exchange for concessions from the prosecutors.” There are three different types of plea bargaining; Charge bargaining, count bargaining, and sentence bargaining. Charge bargaining is when the defendant pleads guilty to a less serious crime, count bargaining is when the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser amount of charges and sentence bargaining is when the defendant knowingly pleads guilty to a sentence. For the purpose of this debate, I will mainly be focusing on charge bargaining. If we take away plea bargaining, then we are taking away justice, which is why my main value is justice. Justice can be defined as being fair and just when it comes to the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. My value criterion is that plea bargaining will cause crime rates to go down,which goes into my two contentions. Plea bargaining should not be abolished because it creates certainty of conviction and it lets the defendant own up to their mistakes and it gives them justice in the courtroom.
Contention 1: Plea bargaining creates certainty of conviction. According to Stanford Law, one of the best law schools in the united States, 95% of felony convictions are the result of plea bargaining. Most criminal cases do not even go to court. For a plea bargain to be accepted the defendant must themselves admit to their charges, which means they themselves are given the right to accept a less severe, less career ruining sentence. The defendant is not required to take this sentence which means they in fact do not give up their justice and have the right to go to trial and face more severe charges, if they desire and wholeheartedly believe they are not guilty for the accusations the prosecution has charged them with.
Which Leads me into my second contention: Plea bargaining should not be abolished in the criminal justice system because it lets the defendant own up to their mistakes and it gives them justice in the courtroom. When the defendant owns up to their mistakes , they still are sentenced for a crime, but they are let off with a less severe sentence. It gives them justice by allowing to admit their fault and take full ownership of what they have done wrong. The Bureau of Justice institute states that 25% percent of the inmates are repeat offenders, which means the majority of inmates don’t do the crime again or don’t get caught doing the same crime twice, which means plea bargaining helps defendants come to the conclusion of how detrimental committing crimes can be.
Basically, Plea bargaining should not be abolished from our criminal justice system.
My two contentions prove this because if we do not have the certainty for conviction and we do not give the defendant the opportunity to own up to their mistakes, then we are taking away justice. Also, crime rates will go down because of my two contentions, which is what my value criterion is. Thank you and vote negative.
My friends told me about quzzister.com. I’ve gone there to read various templates of A-winning academic