Plea Bargaining in exchange for testimony

The current LD topic reads "Resolved, in the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust"
The resolution asks a question about the justice, so defining it carefully will be crucial for both sides. Here's a few definitions and theories that have been floating around:

1) Giving each their due. This is a fairly common definition, just giving people what they deserve. It can lead into a retributive theory of justice stating that punishment must be proportional to crime. Here's a couple cards explaining retributive theory:

Retribution is a rationale for the existence and limits of law... [It] answers the question "why punish" by saying that the offender deserves punishment, and as simple as this statement sounds, its underlying meaning contains a couple of important points about morality and law. Retributivism as a theory of punishment requires retribution as a rationale for law. A retributionist assumes that the law exists for a reason -- a moral reason. All crime, even victimless crime, involves a social harm -- a moral harm. In other words, violating the law not only offends against the law of the land, but the moral code of the land.
-Dr. Tom O'Connor

Drawing the link to proportionality:
[L]egal punishment is to be understood as an institutionalized form of censure for conduct that is morally blameworthy. Criminal offenders, on this account, have not simply acted in ways that are socially disapproved of or contrary to their own interests, but have acted in ways that are morally unjustified. Either they have invaded the moral rights of others or have threatened or attempted to do so, or they have violated legal rules the enforcement of which usefully coordinate complex interactions among citizens or allocate access to scarce resources in ways that are fair. Legal punishment censures offenders' conduct by imposing losses or deprivations on them proportional to the seriousness of their offenses.
-Richard Lippke in "Retributivism and Plea Bargaining," Criminal Justice Ethics,, New York: Summer 2006

Basically, criminals are punished because what they did was wrong, and they are punished according to the severity of their crime. This can be drawn into an argument about the culpability of offenders and what they actually get when they plea bargain.


2) Kantian Theory

Kant bases his theory on the categorical imperative, a set of rules that any rational being would follow
1. The universal maxim. Basically, don't do something unless you would make that a rule for what everyone would do in that situation
2. Don't use people as tools. All rational beings must be the ends of an action, not used as means to your end
These rules can be set up as a test of whether an action is just. Kant is focused on the means of an action, and the intentions of the actor, not the end that the action results in. This probably makes him better for the affirmative, but post if you have any Kantian ideas for the negative

3) Consequentialism
This theory states that we only judge an action by all of its results. We aren't looking at procedure or motivation, only what happens

Utilitarian theory, like that by Bentham or Mill falls into this category. A utilitarian theory states that what is just is what produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In authors like Bentham and Mill this is portrayed as pleasure versus pain; we try to maximize pleasure while minimizing pain for the society overall. This can lead into just about any argument aimed at a social good as opposed to the rights of individuals.

For a more detailed explanation of consequentialism, check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/



For a good explanation of various theories, check http://libarts.wsu.edu/philo/faculty-staff/holbrook%20new/EthicalTheory.pdf or see if there's an article at

http://plato.stanford.edu/

Ideas for arguments on both sides at http://ld-debate-arguments.blogspot.com/