AT Partial Ban CP

There’s a linear tradeoff between aff solvency and [DA impact]. For every case
that is still bargained under the CP, there’s a proportional decrease in the
chance that courts are pushed to the brink. The CP is irrelevant – if the case
outweighs the DA, the aff is always the best-case scenario.

Case outweighs on time frame – the CP only leads to bigger prisons in the long
run – supercharges our impacts.
Farley ’12 [Farley, Najah. “SCOTUS WEIGHS IN ON PLEA BARGAINING – BUT DO THE
DECISIONS “CRASH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM”?.” Harvard Law and Policy Review, 23 March 2012,
http://harvardlpr.com/2012/03/23/scotus-weighs-in-on-plea-bargaining-but-do-the-decisions-
crash-the-justice-system/.
criminal defendants now have a plea
With the addition of this SCOTUS decision,
bargaining system with more control, but it could ultimately increase the
percentage of defendants that plead out, contrary to the goals of those who
wish to see a decrease in the number of people in prison or under state
supervision. The addition of rules to correct disparities to the plea bargaining
process, while it may serve criminal defendants in the short term, may not
serve the greater goal of reducing the prison population in the long term the
way that “crashing the justice system” would. It will be interesting to see whether
Alexander’s ideas continue to hold traction in the national discourse and just how far her idea of
“crashing the justice system” will go.

CP fails – a) can’t draw the line, b) don’t know outcomes, and c) can’t predict
psychology.
Gazal ’05 [Gazal, Oren (Oren Gazal-Ayal, is the dean of the Faculty of Law, A Member of the
Israel Young Academy and the director of the Center for the Study of Crime, Law and Society).
“A Partial Ban on Plea Bargains.” Law and Economics Working Papers, 2005,
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&http
sredir=1&article=1052&context=law_econ_archive]
it is hard to determine whether a certain sentence is exceedingly lenient.
First, Apart

the expected sentence after trial conviction is not always

from the definition of exceedingly lenient bargain being far from clear,

known with sufficient accuracy Even when the post- , especially since sentencing is often a discretionary prerogative of the judge.

trial sentence is more accurately predictable, it is difficult to determine

which settlements are lenient enough to induce a guilty plea when the case
is weak.
CP is circumvented with charge bargaining – only a ban solves.
Gazal ’05 [Gazal, Oren (Oren Gazal-Ayal, is the dean of the Faculty of Law, A Member of the
Israel Young Academy and the director of the Center for the Study of Crime, Law and Society).
“A Partial Ban on Plea Bargains.” Law and Economics Working Papers, 2005,
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&http
sredir=1&article=1052&context=law_econ_archive]
any judicial limits imposed on sentence bargaining can be easily
Second,

circumvented by the use of charge bargaining. curtailing charge It might be argued that

bargaining is difficult , and to the extent that it is possible it is undesired, because the practice is often necessary to encourage defendants’ cooperation. This Part addresses these issues.