Plea Bargaining for Testimony

I'm a debater and the current resolution is "In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust." I have been trying to find which side Objectivism would support. On the side affirming the resolution I can see:
1) The defendant is often coerced into giving testimony by the prosecutor, thus violating free will.
2)That as part of compromise in meeting halfway in the middle it would be bad, especially when the defendant is coerced into a bad agreement.
3)The government can use it to initiate force against either defendant. The first defendant being innocent and in accepting the plea bargain under coercion, unfairly punished. The second by having perjured testimony placed against him.
4)Promotes collectivism in that the only reason to have it would be to protect society.

On negating as an Objectivist I see:
1) Helps capture and bring justice to those who have initiated force with accomplice testimony.
2) In defendants rational self interest as he avoids a greater punishment.We would not get necessary testimonies otherwise as the defendant has no duty to give information
unless given personal benefits.
3)Protects defendant rational right to choice in that he can choose to go trial or take less punishment for his testimony.

Which side would Objectivism take?

Post 1

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 4:53pm

There was a huge argument over this issue a while ago, I think it was in the "Vulture Stalks Child" thread. It wasn't really about prosecutor tactics, which can be hopelessly immoral (Note: the goal of the prosecution is to seek the truth, not to "win at any cost!")

I'm not sure what you mean by "coerced" in this context. Are you saying that plea bargaining it'self is coercion, or can be viewed that way?

Post 2

Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 5:56pm

Both structural and can be used in that way. Defined by W. Boyd Littrell. Bureaucratic Justice: Police, Prosecutors and Plea Bargaining."coercion of individuals by means of brutality or threats undermine a defendant's freedom of will. Unfortunately, case reports are full of allegations of such abuses...
[In the 1955 Supreme Court case Herman v. Claudy, the court ruled:]
"a conviction following trial or on a plea of guilty based on a confession extorted by violence or by mental coercion is invalid under the federal due process clause" Coercion of individuals in the extreme case becomes torture and history demonstrates a regrettable affinity among coercion, torture, and the treatment of criminals. The purpose of a requirement of voluntary waivers of rights is to erect institutional safeguards that protect individuals from coercion. " and "The matter of institutional safeguards brings us to the second kind of coercion: structural coercion that is embedded in the organization of prosecution. Unlike physical brutality, structural coercion imposes cosrts upon defendants who try to assert constitutionally guaranteed rights. It grows from the "unconstitutional conditions that induce" waivers of those rights. Structural coercion requires no direct or dramatic violence against individuals. Its effectiveness depends upon the so-called choices available to criminal defendants. Structural coercion in the guilty plea process involves making offers that cannot be refused. The Harvard Law Review Note cited above puts the point clearly: "A guilty plea induced by a bargain occurs because the state has structured the outcome so that the defendants will choose not to go to trial." By structuring alternatives in this way, organizations transform the meaning of "choice" to include the idea of "forced choices," which is coercion poorly disguised. Circumstances can be so arranged that individuals will "choose" officially predetermined options."

Post 3

Friday, November 16, 2007 - 4:57am