WSDA 2023 全國總決賽Sample Cases出爐

WSDA 2023 全國總決(jue) 賽總決(jue) 賽倒計時

Smple CaseSample Case

FUTURE IS PROMISING

Hello大家好，距離國賽的盛大開幕還有45天！

距離報名截止還有最後2天，年度最大的演講辯論全國賽等你前來挑戰！

不知道大家對辯題的了解都到了什麽(me) 程度～ 今天WSDA君為(wei) 大家帶來正反方的Sample Cases，來助你一臂之力。

Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in criminal justice systems. 刑事司法係統中應廢除辯訴交易。

一起來看看這個(ge) 辯題下可以有哪些精彩的討論！

什麽(me) 是辯訴交易？

辯訴交易是被告和檢察官之間的協議，其中被告同意對針對他們(men) 的部分或全部指控認罪，以換取檢察官的讓步。

正方的可選框架：正義(yi)

正義(yi) 應該是任何刑事司法係統的首要關(guan) 切。它要求公平和平等地對待參與(yu) 法律訴訟的所有個(ge) 人。

正方辯手可以做的weighing：公平

公平確保個(ge) 人得到公正和平等的對待，無論其社會(hui) 經濟地位或是否有法律代表。

反方的可選框架：效率

效率應該是刑事司法係統的一個(ge) 關(guan) 鍵考慮因素。它允許有效分配資源和及時解決(jue) 案件。

反方辯手可以做的weighing：資源管理

Pro Sample Case正方立論稿

We firmly affirm with the resolution. Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in criminal justice systems.

In order to ensure a fair debate, start with definitions.

We define plea bargaining as the practice of negotiating an agreement between the prosecution and the defense whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or (in the case of multiple offenses) to one or more of the offenses charged in exchange for more lenient sentencing.

We define criminal justice system as the network of government and private agencies intended to manage accused and convicted criminals. The criminal justice system is comprised of multiple interrelated pillars, consisting of academia, law enforcement, forensic services, the judiciary, and corrections.

Contention 1. Justice contradictions

Plea bargains contradict desert. Defendants receive a lesser punishment for admitting to a crime they did not commit

Brooks 2022 tells us that,plea bargaining is more than receiving a lesser punishment for a crime; but, instead, it is about receiving a lesser punishment for a different kind of crime typically entailing a lesser charge. Therefore, American plea bargaining can be about changing both the kind of crime that is punished and not only the amount of punishment in relation to that crime.

The bargains lead to defendants admitting to crimes they did not actually commit in return for lesser sentencing.

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4076318

The impact under this contention would be inequality.

Plea bargaining contributes to inequalities within the criminal justice system. Defendants with limited resources or facing harsher charges may feel pressured to accept a plea deal, even if they are innocent or have a weak case.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4076318

Brooks 22 quantifies that American plea bargaining takes place almost exclusively ‘behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. Racial discrimination is endemic in the American criminal justice system with wide disparities in the rate of conviction and length of sentences for convicted defendants by race – and plea bargaining does not appear to reduce these injustices. Without judicial oversight and a lack of empirical information, there are insufficiently robust safeguards to counter any implicit bias and discrimination in plea bargaining.

Abolishing plea bargaining would help level the playing field and ensure fairer outcomes.

Contention 2. Coercion

Plea bargaining often involves coercive tactics by prosecutors, such as threatening defendants with longer sentences if they go to trial. This undermines the principles of justice and can lead innocent individuals to plead guilty to avoid the risk of severe punishment.

subpoint a. Power Imbalance

Plea bargaining gives prosecutors an extreme amount of power over the defendant

Lord 21 clarifies that Plea negotiations, suffer from a similar asymmetrical power structure.  The possibility of charging a crime carrying a lengthy mandatory minimum might easily compel a defendant who is otherwise reluctant to accept any plea offer into a choice as severe as assuming the label of “convicted felon” in order to avoid the immediate pain of incarceration. The inordinate power that society has handed prosecutors gives them the ability to strike Faustian bargains4 with defendants, who may accept substantial long-term harm to themselves in order to achieve a short-term benefit.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4068420

The impact would be pleading guilty.

Plea bargaining fast tracks the criminal justice process in place of seeking true convictions, this results in innocent people being forced into pleading guilty.

Neil 19 quantifies that More than 97 percent of federal criminal convictions are obtained through plea bargains, and the states are not far behind at 94 percent.  some 11 percent pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit since 1989. The National Registry of Exonerations puts the total number at 20 percent since 1989. But whatever the precise figure, it is clear that innocent people are routinely coerced into pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit.

subpoint b. Mass Incarceration

Plea Bargaining drives mass incarceration.

Sutter 20 points out that  mass incarceration illustrates a limit of the economic argument.¶ Our criminal justice system extensively employs pleas; 97 percent of criminal convictions result from such bargains.mass incarceration could not happen without low cost plea bargains. Sloppy and faked drug tests in two different Massachusetts crime labs recently led to 47,000 convictions being thrown out.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/the-good-and-bad-economics-of-plea-bargains

The impact of this contention would be excessive sentences, as defendants may accept a deal to avoid the risk of harsher punishment if they go to trial.

By eliminating plea bargaining, there would be a greater emphasis on individualized sentencing, reducing the problem of over-incarceration. Dervan 13 illustrates that today, over 96% of convictions in the federal system result from pleas of guilt rather than decisions by juries. By assigning a fixed and narrow penalty range to almost every definable offense, sentencing guidelines often empower prosecutors to dictate a defendant’s sentence by manipulating the charges.Many have surmised that the larger the sentencing differential, the greater the likelihood a defendant will forego his or her right to trial and accept the deal.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss1/1

For all these reasons above, we are so proud to affirm.

Con Sample Case反方立論稿

We firmly negate with the resolution. Resolved: Plea bargaining ought to be abolished in criminal justice systems.

In order to ensure a fair debate, start with definitions. We define pleas bargaining as  the practice of negotiating an agreement between the prosecution and the defense whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or (in the case of multiple offenses) to one or more of the offenses charged in exchange for more lenient sentencing.

We define criminal justice system as the network of government and private agencies intended to manage accused and convicted criminals. The criminal justice system is comprised of multiple interrelated pillars, consisting of academia, law enforcement, forensic services, the judiciary, and corrections.

Contention 1.Justice

Subpoint a. Justice for Innocents

Saving judicial resources means lawyers have more time to defend innocent people. Wilkinson, 14 tells us that Bringing losing cases to an efficient conclusion allows them to focus greater attention on more demanding or deserving matters—perhaps involving innocent defendants.

https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/89/2014/06/In-Defense-of-American-Criminal-Justice.pdf

The impact of this would be overwhelming the system means rights are curtailed and innocent people go to jail.

Wilkinson, 14 continues Curtailing plea bargaining would also threaten disastrous consequences for the broader criminal justice system. For example, assuming constant resource levels, limiting pretrial negotiation would almost certainly lead to a dramatic surge in the number of trials.242 In order to cope with the systemic pressure of the multitude of new trials, courts would need to pare back their length and scope, resulting in the curtailment of rights and an increase in the rate of false convictions.

Subpoint b. Negotiated justice

Plea bargaining allows for negotiated justice, which can be more flexible and adaptable to individual cases. It allows for consideration of factors like mitigating circumstances, rehabilitation potential, and individual needs.

Abolishing plea bargaining would limit the ability to tailor justice to the specific circumstances of each case, potentially leading to less fair outcomes.

Open court means open information – coercion becomes far less likely

Brooks 2022 tells us that A judge is unable to accept a defendant’s guilty plea if it is based on ‘an unreal and untrue set of facts’.23 If a plea is based on a statement found to be untrue, then any credit for making a guilty plea would be withheld.If the judge is unconvinced of the accused’s plea of guilt, the accused can be challenged – so it is not the case that the accused can make any guilty plea they wish and have it accepted automatically with a guaranteed sentencing discount for doing so.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4076318

Contention 2. Efficient use of judicial resources

Plea bargaining provides a level of certainty and closure for victims and their families. It allows them to avoid the uncertainties and emotional toll of a trial and move forward with their lives. Eliminating plea bargaining would prolong the legal process, prolonging the psychological impact on those affected.

Subpoint a. Plea bargaining solves

English system resolved 80% of cases through plea bargaining

Brooks 2022 quantifies that Instead of plea bargaining before trial, the English system grants sentencing discounts for charged offences on an early guilty plea to that charge.12 As a result, defendants that plead guilty are accepting their responsibility for this charge – and not for some different offence(s) like in the United States. In 2020/21, nearly 80 per cent of cases in magistrates’ courts and about 78 per cent of cases in the Crown Court were resolved by guilty pleas

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4076318

Subpint b. Efficiency

Plea bargaining helps alleviate the burden on courts by resolving cases quickly and efficiently. By negotiating a plea deal, defendants can accept responsibility for their actions and avoid lengthy trials. This allows courts to focus their resources on more complex cases, reducing backlog and delays in the criminal justice system. Efficiency key for victims – shortens suffering by reaching a faster resolution

Brooks 2022 tells us that a policy of encouraging early guilty pleas aims to reduce the impact of crime on victims and to save victims and witnesses from the need to testify. These additional reasons are non-instrumental. They speak to the anxiety and distress that victims and witnesses can experience in attending trials and being called on to testify. ‘guilty pleas are good not just for the system’s accounting, but for victims and other witnesses who need not take the time, the trauma or the physical risk of giving evidence’. In research conducted for the Sentencing Council, it found victims to be more supportive of guilty plea sentencing than the general public. Victims are a key stakeholder and their broad support matters – and has non-instrumental value

https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4076318

For all these reasons above, we are so proud to negate.

全國總決(jue) 賽等你來挑戰

希望這次的Sample Case能給大家帶來新的啟發，也期待通過Sample Cases大家可以對辯題有更多理解和新的思路。