Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts
Argument: Defendants to not have a legal basis for selling their rights
From Debatepedia
[Edit]
Argument's parent debate
[Edit]
Supporting evidence
- Timothy Lynch. "The Case Against Plea Bargaining". Cato Institute. Fall 2003 - "One suspects that it is not the law because the argument lacks merit. Imagine four people who are charged with auto theft. One defendant pleads guilty to the offense and receives three years of jail time. The second defendant insists upon a trial, but sells his right to call his own witnesses. After conviction, he receives four years. The third defendant insists on a trial, but sells his right to be represented by his famous attorney-uncle, F. Lee Bailey. Instead, he hires a local attorney and, in addition, sells his right to a speedy trial. After conviction, he receives five years. The fourth insists upon a trial, presents a rigorous but unsuccessful defense and, after conviction, receives a prison sentence of 10 years. Are the disparate punishments for the same offense sensible? The courtroom just does not seem to be the proper place for an auction and haggling."
[Edit]
