|
Absolutely it is unjust. For example if a person who is addicted to drugs get caught in possession
of drugs they can get out of any criminal prosecution simply by making a controlled buy on another
person who is selling the drugs instead of using them. Is that fair? You could argue that you got
someone higher off the streets that was causing more damage to society than the person using, but
again is that fair? Not only is it not fair to the drug dealer who is now behind bars but its not
fair to the drug user who learns no lesson but how to tell and get out of it. Do you think that the
drug user will stop using because of this? Absolutely not. They will just buy drugs from the next
dealer that takes the previous ones place. Sure the police get their bust and the government gets
its results but the cycle still exists. Nothing has changed except the face of the dealer. Wouldn't
it be more logical to punish the user and put them through treatment to fight the addiction so that
they will no longer use drugs. There will be no supply if there isn't a demand for it. This so
called war on drugs is all propaganda and political bullshit. As long as they get their stats thats
all that matters. The government doesn't care if there is no more drug use as long as it doesn't
touch them. Look in the papers, they show you how much they are TRYING. Nonsense all of it. I can't
be the only person with the idea that cutting off the demand would kill the supply. I am only a
regular guy, the government is the smartest people this country has to offer. And if that is the
best option they can come up with then we are in trouble my friends. You want my opinion STOP
SNITCHING AND GET HELP. Snitch and keep using drugs is a hell of an option to a drug addict. Which
one are they going to choose? Anyone who thinks that this whole snitching thing is the way to go is
either nieve or extremely prejudice toward drug dealers who sold to someone they know. Its the drugs
that are runing peoples lives not the people selling them. Remember that next time you see in the
news an informant running numbers on a big time drug dealer that it will happen again. Take down the
name and see how long it is until you see it back in the news snitching again on the next dealer. Do
the crime do YOUR time. I'm out. STOP SNITCHING |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Introduction
For prosecutors, a lightened caseload is equally attractive. But more importantly, plea bargaining
assures a CONVICTION, even if it is for a lesser charge or crime. No matter how strong the evidence
may be, no case is a foregone conclusion. Prosecutors often wage long and expensive trials but lose,
as happened in the infamous O. J. Simpson murder trial. Moreover, prosecutors may use plea
bargaining to further their case against a co-defendant. They may accept a plea bargain arrangement
from one defendant in return for damaging TESTIMONY against another. This way, they are assured of
at least one conviction plus enhanced chances of winning a conviction against the second defendant.
For the defendants, plea bargaining provides the opportunity for a lighter sentence on a less severe
charge. If represented by private COUNSEL, defendants save the cost for trial and have fewer or less
serious offenses listed on their criminal records. Utilitarianism also states that is produces,
‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’ Which in this case this is a good thing to have
because it is the general of the well-being of the majority over individual. And I stand firmly that
this resolution should not pass.
Definitions and outline
Some definitions you might need to know from the black’s law dictionary are:
Plea bargain: A negotiated agreement between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant whereby the
defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some
concession by the prosecutor.
Testimony: Is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or
declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation
under penalty of perjury.
Unjust: Contary to justice; no just
Point One
What is utilarianism? Utilarisanism is the greatist good for the greatist amount of people. Why
would this work only for the con side? Because this resolution would take away from the people. Plea
Bargainnig helps more people because it solves more cases than if we did not have it. There are far
to many ways that this resolution should not be passed. Some of the philosophys that the pro side
might try to claim, which is not theirs to claim, for example the philosophy of Utopia by Thomas
Moore. Utopia basicly means perfect. If the pro side tries to claim this philosophy because this
resolution would only create an anti-utopian government. Nothing is perfect, that is true. And
hardly anyone belives in the philosophy or the religon of Utopia, although many people love to read
novels, watch movies, ect… without even knowing it is based on being anti-utopian. Our government
may not be utopian althought one thing is not known by many people, and that is the fact that
government play a huge role in the everyday life, which is called anti-utopia. What about
utiltarianism? It states the greatest good for the greatest number. When does that come in? It comes
is now! This resolution can not pass because it is not fair in many ways! Like say you have robbed a
bank and you have like three occumplises and you got caught. No! Your not going to ‘snitch’ them
out. But they say I will give you a lesser sentence and you think about it…and its rather death or
inprisonment for 40 years..now, what would you say? But still plea baragaing is essiential to help
get crimanles off the street. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I believe the big fish is more important.
1.) guilty man "A" walks guilty man "B" doesn't
2.) guilty man "A" doesn't
I'd prefer option 1. You have more knowledge and you get the man or woman you find to be a better
catch. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Clearly it involves a measure of injustice if a guilty party escapes full punishment for his or her
crimes in return for cooperation. Justice is an abstract ideal, though, which our imperfect systems
of justice can only approximate. If leniency is offered in return for testimony, the relevant
authorities must consider that the overall interests of justice are served; that the defendant's
cooperation will result in the conviction of other guilty parties who might otherwise have escaped
justice. So is this unjust? Any departure from the perfect ideal of justice is unjust to some
degree. The question really, therefore, is not whether it is unjust, but whether it is more unjust
that one person should escape justice slightly or that, potentially, several people should escape
justice completely.
In cases where the defendant is not offering evidence against others, but only offering a guilty
plea to spare the expense of a trial, I agree that the plea bargaining system is unjust and am
opposed to it. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
31 Jan 2008 23:53
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
