LD Jan/Feb 2018 - Plea Bargaining - Introduction

Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in the United States criminal justice system.

Introduction

As is often the case, these days, this topic was explored about 12 years ago in Lincoln-Douglas Debate and more recently in Public Forum debate. While we can wonder if it is a 'balanced' topic which affords Affirmative and Negative more-or-less equal ground I will say it is an interesting topic and one which can be quite informative for students, coaches and judges. Unfortunately for those of you who read this blog, the prior topics are not recent enough for me to post links to, but I do know the Public Forum topic was introduced during my years as a debate coach and judge so I believe I may have back-files which cover the topic. Hopefully, your team will have them as well.

Plea bargaining, the idea that individuals charged with crimes can make deals with prosecutors in exchange for a guilty-plea, is very interesting indeed in light of the fact, that those who stay current with U.S. news see an example of this activity in the national media. The indictment of Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor under the Trump administration, has apparently resulted in some kind of deal with the independent prosecutor, Robert Mueller, in exchange for a guilty plea and while we do not yet know all of the details behind this apparent quid-pro-quo, it is relevant to the topic of this debate.

Before discussing this much further, we should look at some definitions.

Definitions

plea bargaining

From the Wex Legal Dictionary: 

"Many successful criminal prosecutions in the United States end not with jury trials, but with plea bargains. Plea bargains are agreements between defendants and prosecutors in which defendants agree to plead guilty to some or all of the charges against them in exchange for concessions from the prosecutors. These agreements allow prosecutors to focus their time and resources on other cases, and reduce the number of trials that judges need to oversee. In plea bargains, prosecutors usually agree to reduce a defendant's punishment. They often accomplish this by reducing the number of charges of the severity of the charges against defendants. They might also agree to recommend that defendants receive reduced sentences. Some plea bargains require defendants to do more than simply plead guilty. For example, prosecutors often offer favorable plea bargains to defendants who agree to testify for the state in cases against other defendants."

ought to 

For the context of this topic, I see no need to assign any special meaning or nuance to the word, ought. We can apply the Merriam-Webster definition of "used to express obligation" which infers a legal or moral duty. The linkage to a legal obligation is already given in the next word in the topic, 'abolished'. The Oxford English dictionary gives us additional clarity, perhaps, "Used to indicate a desirable or expected state".

abolished 

This is the past tense of 'to abolish' which, according to Merriam-Webster means, "to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)".

United States criminal justice system

There is no point in breaking this down any further since the United States criminal justice system, is a definable thing, even though it is a complex 'thing' which spans several jurisdictions. (More on this later.) This explanation is taken from Professor Paul Marcus, here: 

"As a federation the United States, unlike some other countries, cedes to individual states much power to decide local issues such as education (with both lower and higher education), libraries, and state roads. Perhaps the key area of jurisdiction retained by the states is criminal justice. Yet, as with other areas such as health care, highways, and taxation, there is overlapping or concurrent jurisdiction. Both the federal government in Washington and the individual state governments can oversee various aspects of the criminal justice issue.
The federal criminal justice system is administered through a court system with judges appointed for life by the President, and confirmed by the United States Senate. An appointed Attorney General and local United States Attorneys - prosecutors throughout the country in major cities - handle the day-to-day operations of the system, backed by a wide array of investigatory agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Agency. Crimes falling within the federal system can be national in nature such as federal income tax evasion or a violation of securities law.  Federal crimes may also involve use of interstate facilities such as highways, phone or wire services. Narcotics offenses may fall into both categories as many foreign drugs are imported or exported and much drug traffic goes beyond individual states. States, however, may also seek to control narcotics offenses for such drugs may be possessed, sold, or manufactured within individual state borders.
The vast majority of crimes are committed within the state, not the federal, jurisdictions. So in major states such as California, Florida, New York, Illinois, or Texas well over 90 percent of the violent crimes prosecuted fall to the state prosecutors and not to federal officials.' Individual states have their own prison systems, yet federal prisons also exist. "

Interpretation

Given the above definitions, we can apply some interpretation to the topic. We surmise, in the status quo, prosecutors are making deals with criminals and we are obligated (or it is desirable) this practice ends in the United States. At this point, we have no idea from the wording of the resolution, why this is a problem which requires correction. We can assume the practice serves a purpose beneficial to the criminal justice system and it seems to be perfectly legal under current interpretation of state and federal laws. Given this assumption, we can further assume, at some point our framework must provide a mechanism to show how the harms outweigh the benefits. 

The terminology of "U.S. criminal justice system" is notable, since this institution crosses jurisdictional boundaries between the federal government and the individual states. The words, criminal justice system are lower-case so we can assume they are not a title or name of a specific entity. For this reason we cannot make an assumption, the resolution addresses only the federal criminal justice system, since, for example, there may be a California criminal justice system or a Virginia criminal justice system, each operating under different interpretations of their respective laws. I think the assumption the resolution is addressing a federal institution only is extremely over-limiting. We may debate this topic with the understanding, it refers to any criminal justice system functioning within the United States. In other words, plea bargaining is a bad thing, and should not be done in any criminal justice setting within the United States.

The Obvious value

Already, the astute debater may be thinking about the value framework, in particular, the value of justice commonly defined as "giving each their due". Technically, the word justice as used in the context of this resolution has a slightly different meaning, specifically, "the administration of the law", but the use of the philosophical interpretation of justice as value premise for this debate is intuitive and will no doubt be prominent in most of your rounds. The concept of just deserts, that is, proportionate compensation or recompense can be an engaging theme when addressed deeply and thoroughly and it plays well with the goal of criminal justice, to ensure there is some kind of proportionate recompense for actions which harm others. Let's keep this concept in mind as we begin to explore the Affirmative and Negative positions of this topic.