some more help

ok this is my take on the topic for both aff and neg:

Aff:
Proportional punishment: same Idea as retributive justice, which is giving each what is due.

People lying: I havent gone to much into that idea but its pretty strait forward, people can lye in a court of law to get of for a crime.

Legal Abuse: 2 things about this one in the negotioation stage the defence may not be told all the eviedence against him which is unfair. and two Paul Lewis Hayes refused a plea bargain his crime had a maximum of ten years he got life without parole because he was a repeat affendor.

Constitional rights: The constition gives people the right to trial and to not incriminate themselves both are violated (wavied) with plea bargaining.

Bad deffence attornies: most attornies are paid in advanced by the state so the faster they can settle the case the less work they do for the same pay.

Detterance: if people get off because of a bargain it has no detterent affect to stop the person from doing the crime again.

Negative:

Practicality, economy, case load: these are all really the same with differnt impacts. the judicial system is overloaded as it is and 91% of cases have a bargain involved, therefore it is more practical to use bargaining. The median budget for prosecution of one felony case is $254,000. In 1996 there were an estimated 997,970 felony convictions. That would be two-hundred-fifty-three-billion-four-hundred-eighty-four-million-three-hundred and eighty-thousand dollars in that year alone. However 2/3 of cases involved a plea bargain which made the cost of cases that went to trial that year to a little less then 85 billion. so economy is a big thing here.

Utilitarinism: if a drug dealer testifies against a drug lord more justice will be done.

Letting more crimes go unpunished: there are some cases where bargaining is the only way to convict someone like in hit man examples.

if you need any help with these or others let my know