Blake Invitational 1 Kamiak nb aff

4 Lexington RW Neg

https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Lexington/Weiler+Neg

CP Choice

The counter-advocacy is that individual defendants should choose whether they want to participate in mass plea refusal.

It competes—the abolition of plea bargaining prevents individuals from refusing a plea deal—their solvency advocates defend plea refusal, but that ethical choice can’t happen if plea bargaining is taken off the table

The counterplan solves the aff better—not everyone has to refuse plea deals to crash the courts—making a universal demand for defendants to refuse a plea means they’re forced to risk life imprisonment

Alexander 12: Michelle Alexander (author of The New Jim Crow). “Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System.” The New York Times. March 10th, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html

The answer is yes. The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation. Not everyone would have to join for the revolt to have an impact; as the legal scholar Angela J. Davis noted, “if the number of people exercising their trial rights suddenly doubled or tripled in some jurisdictions, it would create chaos.” Such chaos would force mass incarceration to the top of the agenda for politicians and policy makers, leaving them only two viable options: sharply scale back the number of criminal cases filed (for drug possession, for example) or amend the Constitution (or eviscerate it by judicial “emergency” fiat). Either action would create a crisis and the system would crash — it could no longer function as it had before. Mass protest would force a public conversation that, to date, we have been content to avoid. In telling Susan that she was right, I found myself uneasy. “As a mother myself, I don’t think there’s anything I wouldn’t plead guilty to if a prosecutor told me that accepting a plea was the only way to get home to my children,” I said. “I truly can’t imagine risking life imprisonment, so how can I urge others to take that risk — even if it would send shock waves through a fundamentally immoral and unjust system?” Susan, silent for a while, replied: “I’m not saying we should do it. I’m saying we ought to know that it’s an option. People should understand that simply exercising their rights would shake the foundations of our justice system which works only so long as we accept its terms. As you know, another brutal system of racial and social control once prevailed in this country, and it never would have ended if some people weren’t willing to risk their lives. It would be nice if reasoned argument would do, but as we’ve seen that’s just not the case. So maybe, just maybe, if we truly want to end this system, some of us will have to risk our lives.”

CP Max One Day

CP: In the united states criminal justice system, universal plea-bargaining ought to be made mandatory with a sentencing maximum of one day.

Prefer: analytics

CP Reforms

1NC- Reform CP

CP: The United States Federal Government should eliminate prison for lower-level crimes, reduce sentencing minimums, and eliminate “truth-in-sentencing” and “three-strikes” policies. These policies will apply retroactively.

-three strike laws require that someone that commits a felony and two other crimes be sentenced to life in prison.

-truth-in-sentencing laws minimize the amount of parole people are given

Normal means is clarified by the evidence.

The CP significantly reduces mass incarceration.

Cullen 16: James (Research and Program Associate in the Brennan Center’s Justice Program) “Four Things We Can Do to End Mass Incarceration” December 19 2016 https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/four-things-we-can-do-end-mass-incarceration

It’s time for Americans to rethink how we use prison as a knee-jerk punishment for a majority of crimes. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. There are 2.2 million people behind bars — by far the highest incarceration rate of any comparable nation. We have less than 5 percent of the world’s population but nearly 25 percent of its prisoners. Mass incarceration is the greatest civil rights injustice of our time. People behind bars are disproportionately black and Hispanic. The criminal justice system drives and reinforces deep-seated racial inequity. The United States needs fundamental reform to reduce our reliance on incarceration, but it also needs to keep its citizens safe. A new report by the Brennan Center shows how to do just that. Researchers found 39 percent of prisoners — almost 600,000 people — behind bars do not need to be there for a public safety reason. For some, mostly lower-level and non-violent offenders, prison is an inefficient and unfair sanction. For others, they have done their time behind bars and can be safely released. These four recommendations walk through how we can achieve a fairer, more efficient criminal justice system. 1. Eliminate prison for lower-level crimes Prison is often the default criminal justice sanction when someone breaks the law. It shouldn’t be that way. For those who commit a lower-level crime like drug possession, petty theft, or selling marijuana, prison is not just unfair, it is also a bad sanction for society at large. Prison costs $31,000 a year per prisoner, and often does little to prevent re-offense for these crimes. Probation, treatment, or community service are all more appropriate for many lower-level crimes, not to mention much cheaper (probation is 10 times less expensive). State legislatures and Congress should change sentencing laws to make alternatives to prison the default penalty for certain lower-level crimes, like drug possession and petty theft. 2. Reduce sentence minimums and maximums currently on the books If someone commits a serious crime, like robbery, they should be punished. But there’s little evidence that staying in prison for such long periods of time, such as the 20 or 30-year sentences imposed, will rehabilitate prisoners. In fact, research indicates that longer stays in prison do not lead to lower recidivism. Sometimes, longer stays can even increase recidivism. With prison stays growing longer each year, lawmakers should consider reducing the time many inmates spend behind bars when it’s not necessary. State and federal legislatures should reduce the minimum and maximum sentencing guidelines, and make them more proportional to the crimes committed. We suggest in the report that legislators consider a 25 percent cut as a starting point for the six major crimes (aggravated assault, drug trafficking, murder, non-violent weapons offenses, robbery and serious burglary) that make up the bulk of the nation’s current prison population. This will make our system smarter while still protecting public safety. 3. Make these changes retroactive If we know that something is good policy, then we should practice it. Many times, criminal justice reforms only impact future defendants. But if the reform is the right policy, then we should live by it. Current inmates should be able to petition judges for retroactive application of the two reforms above, on a case-by-case basis. 4. More ideas There are other ways the country can improve the criminal justice system for the better that line up with the goals of the Brennan Centers report: Reinvest savings into crime prevention polices: The recommendations in the recent Brennan Center report would save almost $20 billion dollars a year. We should reinvest those savings into police, schools, and reentry programs, which will help improve public safety even more. $20 billion could cover 270,000 police officers, 327,000 teachers, or 360,000 probation officers. Most experts agree that these investments better prevent crime than prison. Eliminate “Three Strikes Laws” and “Truth in Sentencing”: Both policies take away the ability of judges to properly asses the appropriate sentence for defendants in the criminal justice system. We should trust our judges to make these decisions instead of forcing an inappropriate sentence with set-in-stone rules