Personal tools

Argument: Upholding justice trumps the benefits of plea bargains

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Argument's parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • Bohm, Robert. "McJustice: On the McDonaldization of Criminal Justice". Justice Quarterly. March 2006 - Bohm lays out a long list of benefits from plea bargaining, but ultimately concludes that these are all at the cost of justice, which is too great of a cost to bear. The implication of this argument is that maintaining justice is of higher importance than the many social expediencies laid out in support of plea bargaining. The argument is that justice is not flexible to social utility and trumps these considerations.[1]
  • Timothy Lynch. "The Case Against Plea Bargaining". Cato Institute. Fall 2003 - "It is true that plea bargaining speeds caseload disposition, but it does so in an unconstitutional manner. The Framers of the Constitution were aware of less time-consuming trial procedures when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but chose not to adopt them. The Framers believed the Bill of Rights, and the freedom it secured, was well worth any costs that resulted. If that vision is to endure, the Supreme Court must come to its defense."


Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits