Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

Felons should retain their voting rights in contemporary America. Rebuttals: Con argues that felons already regain their voting rights post-prison. However, this is not universally true, and the argument is misplaced since I contend that felons should never lose their right to vote in the first place. Contention 1: Dishonesty and Character Con posits that we deny children, non-citizens, and the mentally incompetent the right to vote due to lack of trust. I disagree that it's a trust issue with children; it's their undeveloped reasoning ability due to an immature pre-frontal cortex. Non-citizens don't vote because they're not part of the social contract. Con asks if criminals should be grouped with these categories. Clearly not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent, would have been deemed so legally. Thus, Contention 1 is negated. Contention 2: Congressional Voting Authority Con's argument mostly describes the current state without justification. I've outlined why this should change. Con states that felons don't meet our standards for responsibility, trustworthiness, and loyalty to law before participating in governance. This contradicts American principles: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." By denying felons the vote, we deny their consent, making the government illegitimate. An illegitimate government is unacceptable. Therefore, felons should retain their voting rights. Overview: Con's arguments can be summarized as: 1) Felons should be grouped with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens, thus lacking voting rights. 2) Felons, under the current system, don't have voting rights, so they shouldn't. 3) Voting rights require meeting specific criteria. Argument 1 is false and dismissed. Argument 2 merely states the status quo. Argument 3 is arbitrary and weak. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Thank you for your rebuttal. After rereading your opening statements a few times, here is my rebuttal. Morality - In this section of my opponents argument, they mentioned that the murder affected the entire family. The death penalty doesn't cocern the effects the family in question faced. In fact, in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, one of the families who had an eight year old son killed urged against the death penalty of the bomber in an open letter. [1] Also, a 2008 study suggested that punishing the offender made the victim (or the families) feel worse. [2] Proper Judgment - I would barely classify this as a reason for capital punishment to be accepted. This just shows it's a lengthy process. Yes, the process of a death penalty case is around 6-10 years, but this doesn't mean mistakes can't be made. [3] Like I said in my opening statements, 130 death row inmates have been released. Despite proper judgment, they were wrongly convicted. But imagine what would happen if they were killed: we wouldn't be able to bring them back. Deterrence - One example of the failure of deterrence states that crime in North Carolina has gone down since 2006. Coincidentally, not one person has been executed in NC since then. Similarly, murder rates are lower in states that don't have the death penalty. [4] "In fact, most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness." [5] In these circumstances, would you think of the future consequences you may face? You wouldn't be able to think rationally. So my opponents argument about would be criminals being put off by the death penalty only represents a marginal group. Kindest from of punishment - My opponent states that inmates lose their right to vote and that they're not considered a citizen. They go on to talk about how keeping them alive would be inhumane. With this argument, you could say that all inmates with a life sentence should be put to death. There are outrageous examples of life sentences like 3,000 cases of life without parole of non-violent crimes. [6, 7] So should someone be sentenced to death for, say, possession of a crack pipe or breaking into a liquor store? In conclusion, I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be used for punishment. Thank you for the debate. Citations [1]http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3]http://criminal.lawyers.com... [4, 5]http://nccadp.org... [6]http://www.theguardian.com... [7]http://www.motherjones.com...

Other countries have a different set of laws than America does. I live in America, I don't know about you. But the point in this is that we have an established set of laws, and if you break them, they suffer the consequences. And with the economy as it is, we can't afford to give prisoners free jobs that innocent Americans could be paid for, nor support them for their entire lives living.

The Contender has many flaws in his argument. Firstly, "Harlan" says "I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear." This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases. The other half of his point tells us that he would like to see more "education" rather "than fear". I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose? A famous gangster and killer called Al Capone once said "I have spent the best of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." Yes. Thats the word of the most feared gang leader in Chicago. As you can see, criminals don't see how they are wrong, and they won't see how they are wrong through "education". Men like Al Capone think like that. There is no way of escaping that fact. Secondly, "Harlan" doesn't get the point of a death sentence. Here are his words: "Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs." So what "Harlan" is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to "kill more people in order to get organs". Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment. The organ donation is just a way of a 'repayment' of the people they've killed etc. And also, only healthy organs will be chosen (I would also like to add that healthy blood can also be donated). And as "Harlan" said:" I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized." This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person. Why doesn't "Harlan" feel sorry for those who were killed? Why, "Harlan"? Thirdly, "Harlan" says: "The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one." This proves that "Harlan" does not understand the point. I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues. And as "Harlan" says: "Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution." Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe. And also, "Harlan" still doesn't get the point. The death sentence is a fair punishment for a an "attrocious" crime. "Harlan" is relating the death sentence as a way of getting rid of people. That's not my point! And even more important, isn't a "mental institution" just another phrase for "jail"? They do have rehabilitation places in prisons you know. And lastly, "Harlan" says: "There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary." This proves again that "Harlan" does not understand. We are not trying to get rid of people. We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood. We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population. We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done. And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in "Harlan's" argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in "Harlan's" argument.

You state that if pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating pedophiles instead of incarcerating them. However, the way pedophiles are currently handled in society doesn"t necessarily reflect the appropriate way they should be handled once convicted. You also state that if only incarcerating a pedophile, then we are no longer punishing them for their wrongdoing. I disagree with this because they are, in fact, being punished in a number of ways if incarcerated. The mere act of taking away their autonomy and freedom is a message of punishment in itself. Furthermore, while in prison, convicted pedophiles are considered the lowest on the totem pole and are often subject to harassment and victims of violent crimes. This is also a form of punishment they face while incarcerated. Convicted pedophiles sentenced to civil commitment centers receive a clear message of punishment, and removing them from the community is beneficial to children, the victim"s families, and the rest of society.

My opponent opened up with a quote, and I coincidentally have decided to do the same. My opponent quoted FDR, but I will quote a much lesser known politician. His name was Marc Morial and he served as the 59th mayor of New Orleans. "We must continue to have voting rights in the state, not to politicize this, but they must have a voice in the rebuilding effort in the community from which they have been displaced. " . http://www.brainyquote.com... What does this mean other than that we should expand voting rights? I think it means that the people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country. Five states have strict voter ID laws and many more have laws where ID is requested. Voter ID laws are a violation of civil liberties and should not be put in place anywhere. How can we call ourselves the land of the free if we require voter ID laws? . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.usnews.com... . https://www.aclu.org... Another huge problem that currently exists in our voting system is felony disenfranchisement. That's right. If you are a convicted felon in this country, you lose your voting rights (usually for life). Of course, this has racist outcomes as well. Felony disenfranchisement was originally put in place in the south in order to silence the voices of black voters. It was and still is much easier to convict poor people (usually poor and black people) and so once they got out of prison, they couldn't vote, and they still can't. Poll taxes were also used for this same racist intention. We should constitutionally restore voting rights to all. . http://www.nytimes.com... Now I shall move on to my legal argument. Now, there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing voting rights to all, but there are several steps that we have to add on to. Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point. Now for a moral argument. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " Notice he didn't say that our lives begin to end the day that educated people become silent. He said we, as in all people. I know this because M. L. K. gave his life for civil rights and voting rights. He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights? I await my opponent's rebuttals.

I, too believe that we should live in a society in which no one pays attention to race, gender, sexual orientation, so on and so forth. BUT, your resolution falls apart in one aspect, and that comes to dealing with felons and whether children should have all the rights adults have. I would like to ask my opponent the following questions: Q1: Should convicted child molesters be able to have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Should they be able to be in a room alone with a defenseless child? Q2: Should people who have a felon for theft be able to work at a bank or anywhere where they have complete control over money or items that are not theirs? Q3: Should someone who dangerously stalks another person be able to have the right to be near them? What if it is proven that the stalker is contemplating the rape and/or murder of the person they are stalking? Shouldn't the victim have the right to have a restraining order, thus disallowing the stalker the right to be around the victim? Q4: Should a serial killer have the right to live amongst more victims? Q5: Should a 5 year old be able to vote for the president? They are not mature enough. They probably can't even read. That is denying them the right of voting, but it is for the better.Q6: Should children around the age of nine or ten be able to have sex? Sex is a right for adults, but children are not allowed to have intercourse for good reason. Thank you for reading. Back to you, Pro.

My opponent is now saying a question of an an opinion. Does rewarding murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc. Is that right? Again, prisoners are rewarded with better health care than the average unemployed American. Also, little known fact; prisoners are treated better than the elderly. How does jail solve the issue when statistics show that 67% of prisoners are re-arrested within three years of release. Clearly, life in prison is not a deterrent of crime. My statistics are based on the bipartisan Commision on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons.

As you mentioned in your speech, jailbreak is a big thing which is true and to add on to that point what if you take Guzman as an example? The world's most wanted drug lord deeply embarrassing the Mexican government by escaping TWICE from maximum security prison. He is known to trade slaves, drugs and weapons and have killed more than thousands of people indirectly or directly. Should this type of person not serve a death penalty? If he is kept alive, he will not change and continue his drug trades and cause harm to the world. Obviously we know that he did help people but his graceful actions were not in fact so called legal because the money he uses were mainly from drugs. My point is that criminals such as Guzman should be executed for killing so many. I understand that although around $17 billion have been spent on prisons, don't you think there will always be a flaw? Unless we execute these malicious criminals they will still be in this world and still have that chance of killing people. No matter how strong the prisons are, there will always be a flaw and a chance of escape.

Thank you with engaging with my arguments although I think that you need to provide some arguments against as well as rebutting my position. I will use this round to support my position by responding to your rebuttal. Clearly, the first main point of contention is the nature of prison. I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously when you argued that prison was "not even a bad place for prisoners". Now, I don't know what kind of prisons that you are talking about but to say that prison is not tough is completely laughable. As you even admitted, there is a risk of violence in prison and therefore there must be some element of toughness in prison. Furthermore, you are completely deprived of so much freedom. You seem to consider prison to be some kind of homogeneous institution that doesn't even punish prisoners. This is completely false. There is immense variation in prison and those convicted of especially horrible crimes would likely be in secure units which are even more tough and unpleasant places. Don't tell me prison is a nice place. It is not. Nobody leaves prison without a sense of happiness or relief. Prison is gruelling and tough. Prison is a tough punishment and therefore is suitable for dealing with horrible crimes. Secondly, you provided me with the response that says that it doesn't matter if a few innocent people die. I believe that if a civilised state kills innocent people then that is a serious offence that should concern everybody very much. Secondly, in order to justify a few innocents dying you have to show me that the benefits of the death penalty are so overwhelming that a few innocents dying are acceptable. You then provided a logically fallacious statistic that only 4.1% of convicts for murder are innocent. I'm not sure how that one is worked out. But surely there must be more since the reason they are convicts is that people think they are guilty so surely those that are innocent are not recorded? Furthermore, 4.1% is unacceptable and considering the incarceration rate of countries like the USA that is a lot of wrongly convicted people (many of whom are probably Black Americans). Furthermore, since the death penalty exists in many states that would mean a lot of those innocents would die. That is absolutely abhorrent and should make any advocate of the death penalty consider their beliefs especially considering that those convicts have families and loved ones too. Our criminal justice systems also do not improve necessarily year upon year. In the UK for instance, a scandal has emerged recently of evidence in rape and murder trials being withheld from the defence and thus resulting in some wrong convictions. In the USA, those people could now be dead. Also, the idea of us lying to families of wrongly executed people is completely immoral and hard to uphold. Next, you provided a very generalising and a verging on the racist argument against my assertion of racial bias in the prison system. I provided you with two accurate stats which suggest bias. Your response was that black people commit more crime. I find this idea of blackness causing more violent crimes completely ridiculous and offensive. There is no evidence that skin colour causes people to commit more violent crimes. It is true that black people are often caught up in more crime but this is to do with socio-economics and certainly not race. Also, considering the vast extent to which black people are more likely to be wrongly convicted literally proves that racism is a genuine cause of overrepresentation of oppressed groups on death row and in prison in general. Of course, the black community has crime problems but the criminal justice system has a race problems too undeniably so. As I explained last time, there are cases of jurors being openly racist during death penalty trials. Racism is a problem and the reality is that Black people face vast injustices which do lead, tragically, to them being murdered at greater rates by the state. Let's not let our racial problems manifest themselves in cases as serious as capital punishment. You then explain that prisoners of such crimes are a risk to others. This is absolutely true. However, we can control them to an extent. We can put them in solitary confinement and protect others instead of taking the lazy option and murdering them. While I argue that we should keep many people alive with the slight risk of them potentially killing others in prison, you argue that we should guarantee killing lots of people in the hope that some people may survive which could be achieved anyway. Your response just doesn't stack up. Also, thanks for admitting that being killed is more painful than life in prison. This reveals that my second argument against the death penalty still stands. Victims may or may not feel more satisfaction when the criminal dies but this is not always what we should base the DP on. You then made a very dubious claim that Japan having the death penalty means it has a lower homicide rate than SA. SA is a much poorer country with immense social and racial problems whereas Japan is richer and has a much more cohesive and safe society. These examples are utterly ridiculous to use to justify your argument of a deterrent. Also although some murderers may never feel sorrow, that doesn't mean that some do. Not everyone on death row is Hannibal Lecter and therefore there will be many who do feel remorse. We can spare their lives and give them the opportunity to apologise to the victim's family and make positive changes. I also believe that they should have opportunities to leave prison if they are no longer a threat and have served a sufficient punishment but obviously not in the cases of really evil criminals (although these are not the majority). Now onto the minor points of clash. Let me clarify my stance: I believe that human suffering in terms of painful suffering is universally wrong. However, causing suffering in order to alleviate more suffering is moral because ultimately less overall suffering would be endured and therefore fits under my stance. Also, I believe that prisoners should not physically suffer rather they should experience boredom and mental suffering within reason because this will actually allow them to change and become reformed people who have the chance to give to the world. My stance is not contradictory and still works. Next, I don't doubt that some families of criminals want them to die. But also many don't and especially considering some are wrongly convicted it makes more sense for the families to not have their loved-ones murdered by the state. Many, unsurprisingly, would rather have their child spend time in prison than be murdered in a painful way. Also, fetuses are absolutely not sentient human beings. This is a separate issue and that is my opinion so let's not bring it in. Apart from that, individuals can have the opportunity to reform. I believe that some will be let out after they have served their time and furthermore, progress can be made in prison. You can learn in prison, you can also confront the victim's family and you can lead a good life in prison. If you kill them, all this is completely extinguished. Moreover, fiery and often political stances and emotion do play a part in convictions. The religion of judges does have an impact on who dies. Furthermore, being sick in the head is often caused by the carrying out of violence just like violence in video games leads to violence in real life. This is still a cause of higher murder rates. And considering the plethora of states this study was done on it is far more reliable for instance certain states which have the death penalty are richer and yet still have higher murder rates. There is a tangible and real link between brutality from an authority leading towards ordinary citizens thinking its okay to be brutal in the same way a holy book encourages violence. I am also an atheist too by the way. Yes, in some cases it can be very extreme but racism exists in many cases and even if it is a minority, considering the severity of the punishment this matters greatly and our racism should not allow us to murder people. So in conclusion, I have shown that our criminal justice system has inherent flaws which still persist and that therefore innocent people die. I have also shown that many innocent people die and this is a serious moral problem for advocates of DP. I have also bolstered my stance that prisons are a real and tough alternative and that threats can be managed. I have further demonstrated that the majority of criminals on death row can change and should have that opportunity to benefit themselves and society and therefore we should not condemn them to a life whose only mantra was crime. Finally, I have supported my claim that brutality at a higher level perverts and corrupts society. For these reasons, my main arguments still stand strong whilst no opposition arguments have yet been made and therefore I continue to urge the voters to say yes to abolishing the DP. Taking a life when an innocent life has already been taking is not justice - it's revenge.

Concerning your confusion about the last example I used and it's relevancy to the topic, I was trying to get you to see the positive results that therapy and rehab can have. Also I think that you have a little too much of a personal hate on this topic to be participating in this argument, but that's just my conclusion of your personality as I am an intern of a psychoanalyst. You said that you would rather be put to death than be put in jail, this is just your opinion and provides nothing to what we are discussing because criminals don't get to choose their punishment. I just want to end this quickly because I haven't enjoyed hearing your biased and opinion based input. It is a better solution to put serial rapists and murderers in therapy rather than putting them to death because of the reasons previously stated in rounds one and two. Also I don't really understand what you said in your last section so I can't really come back at it.


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

Citizens receiving government assistance should not be granted the right to vote. It's crucial to understand that voting has never been an unconditional right for everyone within the United States. This is partly true, but let's delve deeper. If there are limitations on other constitutional rights such as free speech and the right to bear arms, why shouldn't there also be constraints on the right to vote? The rationale behind restrictions is protection. The freedom of speech is curtailed because falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater can lead to harm. Similarly, the freedom to possess arms is restricted because owning biological weapons can cause significant damage. However, voting for one's security does not result in such consequences.

Allowing an able-bodied individual who receives benefits to vote is akin to permitting a child to set their own rules. No parent would consent to this, as it is logically unsound. If it's accurate that individuals receiving benefits shouldn't be allowed to vote because they'd vote for "self-serving policies," then should anyone be eligible to vote? The wealthy wouldn't be able to vote because they'd favor candidates who promise tax cuts. The unemployed wouldn't be able to vote because they'd support policies that create more jobs, possibly at the expense of other economic sectors. The disabled wouldn't be able to vote because they'd choose the candidate who offers the most generous social benefits. The average citizen wouldn't be able to vote because they'd back the person with whom they share values.

Today, the Democratic party is essentially buying votes with taxpayers' money. However, it could be argued that the Republican party and the Tea Party are also buying votes with others' money. It boils down to "vote for me if you want more welfare, more Medicaid, more unemployment benefits, more food stamps, more W.I.C. money, free birth control, free healthcare, free college education, etc." But what if these individuals genuinely can't secure employment? What if they require welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, or W.I.C. money? What if they can't afford food, medical care, birth control, healthcare, or college tuition? Essentially, the non-productive members of society are voting to redistribute wealth from the productive to themselves, perpetuating an entitlement culture that is undermining America.

While this mentality did contribute to the problem, it's not the sole cause. The major financial crisis began in 2008 under a Republican administration. At that time, we didn't have the benefits we have now. So, how did we fall into that rut

"do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished?" Define crime, because I am almost certain our definitions are not the same. "would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check?" No I would not. For the government (a small group compared to the general public) to control the populace would cause our government to be a type of oligarchy. In a way the people keep themselves in check by making local laws and by keeping a sense of justice in a community. An anarchist community survives in a similar way by the will of the people to live in a just community. Because of this, I do not believe it is necessary to keep the people in check, and if I do not believe it is needed, then by proxy I do not believe it is their job. On a different note, the people do not really hold enough power to have a need to be kept in check. They vote, but through the dispersal of abilities the individual loses most destructive power, unlike government officials who have been given extreme amounts of harmful capabilities. With the amount of power they have and the amount of officials, they have a stronger power with more of a need to be kept "in check". I am realizing, now that I myself have used the term "in check", that it is a term mildly depending on definition. My apologies for not realizing it on my part. "it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the verdict, not the judge, correct?" Yes it is the jury. They make the final decision. I have nothing more to say to that. "can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust?" Alright. First I have to wonder if we are only talking about laws, or if we are talking about precepts as well. For instance there is the precept that income tax is required of a person, though no where in any book of law is it written that we must pay income tax. I invite you to look for yourself if you do not believe me. This is a precept though, but you can still be put in prison just as easily for it. There's wiretapping which leads into "thought crime". That's an interesting one. President Bush was the first to really push this topic. In short, if they suspect you may be thinking of committing a crime, then they can charge you. There's one law about to be passed here in Oklahoma that states that if a minor dies from alcohol abuse on your property, you are then charged with life in prison under the assumption that you are guilty of murder until you can prove yourself innocent. Is it to be believed that you are now guilty until proven innocent? I hardly think that seems accurate. One other question to get this straight, do you want laws affecting the individual, or laws affecting a group, federal laws, or state laws? My main point of confusion goes back to my original question of, do you want precepts, or do you want legitimate laws. If you could please clarify this, then I would be more than happy to respond with an appropriate answer. "are the government not made up of the american people?" Your last question strikes me as being a bit open ended, but I will do my best to explain my answer. Though our government, in principle, is designed to be controlled by the people, it isn't quite so today. Referring back to my statement on how corporations and lobbyists are considered as one person. This removes the individual right of the people making up the corporation. Also take a look at campaign finance reform. An individual can only give a certain amount of money to a candidate while a corporation can give far more. So the corporation has more power than the individual. Therefor I would almost say that the government is made up of corporations and groups, which are made of people. Though these are made up of the people, it is impossible for the individual to be entirely represented, just as it is impossible to represent every citizen simply because of the ration between citizens and reps. So, in a way, the government is made up of the people, but in another way it is not. Things in the government have been done without the people's knowledge as well, so the government currently is not what the people necessarily intended, so because of that alone the government isn't made up purely of the people's ideas. I apologize for rambling, but I believe it was all relevant. I'm almost sure my answers will not satisfy you. I wrote them too quickly and didn't have a chance to explain them as thoroughly as I'd like for lack of time. I'm very sorry for that.

As this is the final round of this debate, Let me start by saying that I have really enjoyed your posts, And they are thought provoking. I do still hold to my opinion that I should not be asking the government to do that which I myself am unwilling to do, At least when it comes to another's life. Another issue that I do have with the death penalty is there is a gray line between what crimes are horrendous enough to qualify for the death penalty, And which deserves life in prison. There must at some point be a line of where someone is just bad enough for the death penalty, Or one is just barely good enough to qualify for life. Where exactly is that line, And does it vary by what state it is tried in, Or just by random jury selection? As with any punishment, There is a gray area, But when it comes to someone's life, That gray line is the difference between life and death.

In his closing speech, my opponent gave three reasons why voters should vote for him. He has not been on debate.org for very long, but may I remind the voters: VOTE FOR WHO YOU THINK DID THE BETTER JOB DEBATING, NOT NECESARILY WHO YOU AGREE WITH ON THE TITLE. Voting for Pro or voting for con does not mean you think sex offender registries should be discontinued. Remember, you vote for the better debater so we will know if we need to work on something or not. My closing speech: *Sex offender registries don't hurt people, they help innocent people.* Thank you opponent and voters. This was a good debate.

1. The jury is not forced to find someone guilty. 2. The government has nothing to do with a plea bargain. That is left up to the lawyers. (once again pointing blame at too many people) 3. Why should the government pay for a verdict of a jury? If there was no good evidence a decision can be appealed. If the jury finds a shred of doubt due to insufficient evidence, it is their responsibility not the government to find the person innocent. If evidence is planted then the planter should pay. (once again pointing blame at too many people) 4. It is not unjustly if they were found guilty by a jury of their peers. 5. I could see the government clearing the person's record if they were found innocent in the end. That would make it easier to find a job. That would restart their lives, the ones that the circumstances ruined. 6. The Fairness has everything to do with the debate when you use a definition (Justice) that is satisfied by the fair and moral actions of the government. You give a lot of information on why they should be given reimbursements, but show no evidence to support that the Government be the one to reimburse them. The only thing you do is point the blame of mistakes to the government when they did not convict the person, the jury did. Why should we punish the government for doing their jobs of protecting the common good? Especially when (and you show support for this argument) they do everything possible to be fair and just in the process of a persons conviction. Until you show a duty of care by the government of persons after they are released there should be no remunerations. I would like to close with the same statement that went unanswered last round. Money should not be spent on the past it should be spent on the future. Maybe then there could be less flaws.

Yes, I agree that they have more luxuries than that of about fifty years ago. However, even though they do have these luxuries, they are still locked away and kept from freedom. Furthermore, depending on their crimes, record of emotional issues, etc, is what regulates who gets these luxuries. If charged with manslaughter and/ or any other crime that may result in a life sentence, these luxuries are regulated or just taken away from these type of prisoners. Meaning they do still have punishment enough at terms of prison, not death. Death is the easy way out in this case, which means they deserve to be locked up their entire life. Not just sent out of it.

Firstly, my opponent ignored my argument showing his own personal contradiction. This is a prima facie argument, and defeats my opponent's criticisms. Moving on to his (few) claims:"This is retarded. Yu[sic] win a debate by being eclared[sic] a winner from a legitimate judge you fvcktard[sic]. obviously[sic] you know nothing about debate[sic]. " Deciphering the spelling and grammar, I would usually address this by saying there are multiple judges in most debates. However, this is irrelevant to the debate, and therefore irrelevant to either of our cases. "it shows that crisians[sic] are stupid stephen_d1psh1it[sic]. seriously its[sic] clear s[sic] day"The irony of presenting a case as clear s day. However, my opponent still did not present his own argument, nor did the idea that Christians having low intelligence affect whether they should be allowed to vote. To conclude, my opponent has presented no arguments in favour of himself, yet managed to somehow make an argument showing he is self-contradictary. Furthermore, he has misspelt words endlessly (Spelling and Grammar -1) and constantly swore at myself (conduct -1).

Before I start, I would like to clarify that we will have four rounds, and the last one should be used for pure rebuttals. the word limit is approximately 700. I have tried my best to be concise and I am looking forward to your reply! It is my first debate on debate. org, so here it goes. Good Luck! Firstly, I define punish as to give someone a penalty for their wrong doings, e. g. jail, fines. I would define people under the poverty line as those that live under $1.90 USD a day. I also define economical crimes as crimes such as theft and robbery. For this debate, I will be talking about punishments in the first round, the wage gap in the second, and the poverty line in the third. Moving on, majority of criminals that commit these crimes are in poverty. Poverty can lead to high levels of stress, but it is no excuse that these people be exempted from any kind of punishment, as their situation does not justify their actions. The purpose of a punishment is to deter the criminal in question and the public. These people should not resort to unscrupulous means to get what they need, assuming the purpose of which is to provide for their lack of financial stability. If we let convicts off without punishing them, it is not only unjust for the rest of the criminals, but will also encourage a higher crime rate, as it does not deter the criminal from doing it again. There are a wide range of punishments, such as jail terms and fines, and many of them take up time and money. However, since I understand that they may have to provide for a family, I think that community service is also among the most effective, because you have to wear a uniform and sweep the streets, which in my opinion, affects the persons ego and they will feel embarrassed, for the fear of being recognised, looked down upon etc. This concludes my first point.

Let me respond to your rebuttal one by oneMurderers could be rehabilitated:An eye for an eye is a good policy for murderers. They deserve to lose their life because they killed innocent people. If murderers get a second chance than most potential murderers will still commit murder. Giving murderers a second chance does not deter future murders. If murderers get a second chance than some of them might commit murder after they get out of prison. Some people do commit a crime again after they get out of prison. The government shouldn't take the risk of that happening. The government should keep inncocent people safe by making sure that murderers lose their life instead of getting a second chance. The government should only use the death penalty when there is clear evidence of murder. This way innocent people will not get the death penalty. There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:I agree that teaching moral values will prevent people from commiting murder but that's not the only way to do it. The government should also prevent people from commiting murder by making the punishment is a lot worse. There are studies that show that the death penalty deters future murders. The studies are described in this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com... the death penaty may not have an effect on the murder rate but abolishing it would not deter future murders. If the death penalty is done in a painful way than it will deter murder by even more because more people will be scared to commit murder. Why would anyone want to get killled in a painful way? The way they should use the death penalty is by shooting the murderer with a gun. The key to lowering the murder rate is teaching moral values and scaring potential murderers by using harsher punishments.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:If the court is not sure if the murder happned by accident, for self defense or intentionally than they should not give the defendant a punishment. The court should get clear evidence and find out if the muder happened intentionally or not before they give the defendant a punishment.Conclusion:It was a pleasure having this debate with you. The voters will vote for the person that did a better job debating. Good Luck on your last chance to argue.

why should we give the heartless people in this world any other option but prison? Prison is the only way of ensuring that criminals are taken out of circulation. Alternatives to prison, by their very nature, are riskier. The offender is, after all, still 'on the street', and the public are still at risk of re offending the offender. also,Prison is an immediate, easily understood punishment. Following the sentence, the convicted criminal is immediately escorted out of the courtroom, placed in the prison van and to be taken behind the high walls of the prison. No other sentence is seen to have this immediacy. why would you want to risk the person escaping because action was taken right then and there.

Criminal scum like serial rapist or murderers almost always have something wrong with them. Because of mental instability, they are declared innocent because they we're not "thinking in the right mind" when committing a crime, and to me that's absolute rubbish. These people have no positive effect on a functioning society, so why do we send them to jail to rot for the rest of their lives? Honestly, I wish I know, It's simply unreasonable. Our prisons are already being overcrowded, and out of a survey undertaken by the British Ministry of Justice, 60% of short-term prison sentence offenders that committed crimes will re-offend, showing the hole in the reasoning that jail "corrects" poor social behaviour. Having me and my conscience think about past deeds makes me learn nothing. Capital punishment should be brought back to straiten up those who challenge the authority of the law, to remind those that taking a human life while lucid will result in you losing your life. Family's are never really satisfied when a murderer who killed a loved goes to jail for 20 years. Eventually, he will be free again, and whether he has a change of heart or not, he will be able to commit more crimes, and ultimately the the family who was wronged will not be completely satisfied. I believe jail should be reserved for major first-time convicts, those who have been to jail and committed a crime yet again have shown they cannot correct their ways and should no longer linger in our functioning society. Sources, The Economist, The UK Express, ICPS


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

Police might sway their voting decisions
This scenario could potentially occur at any polling station, but it doesn’t. These precautions are being implemented as the European Court of Human Rights reviews whether a comprehensive prohibition on prisoner voting constitutes a human rights violation. Consequently, it is probable that the Government will establish numerous procedural safeguards to guarantee that voting rights are exercised comparably to those outside of prison. Only by doing so will they fully comply with the Human Rights Court’s expectations, which they are keen to avoid breaching.

"do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished?" Define crime, because I am almost certain our definitions are not the same. "would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check?" No I would not. For the government (a small group compared to the general public) to control the populace would cause our government to be a type of oligarchy. In a way the people keep themselves in check by making local laws and by keeping a sense of justice in a community. An anarchist community survives in a similar way by the will of the people to live in a just community. Because of this, I do not believe it is necessary to keep the people in check, and if I do not believe it is needed, then by proxy I do not believe it is their job. On a different note, the people do not really hold enough power to have a need to be kept in check. They vote, but through the dispersal of abilities the individual loses most destructive power, unlike government officials who have been given extreme amounts of harmful capabilities. With the amount of power they have and the amount of officials, they have a stronger power with more of a need to be kept "in check". I am realizing, now that I myself have used the term "in check", that it is a term mildly depending on definition. My apologies for not realizing it on my part. "it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the verdict, not the judge, correct?" Yes it is the jury. They make the final decision. I have nothing more to say to that. "can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust?" Alright. First I have to wonder if we are only talking about laws, or if we are talking about precepts as well. For instance there is the precept that income tax is required of a person, though no where in any book of law is it written that we must pay income tax. I invite you to look for yourself if you do not believe me. This is a precept though, but you can still be put in prison just as easily for it. There's wiretapping which leads into "thought crime". That's an interesting one. President Bush was the first to really push this topic. In short, if they suspect you may be thinking of committing a crime, then they can charge you. There's one law about to be passed here in Oklahoma that states that if a minor dies from alcohol abuse on your property, you are then charged with life in prison under the assumption that you are guilty of murder until you can prove yourself innocent. Is it to be believed that you are now guilty until proven innocent? I hardly think that seems accurate. One other question to get this straight, do you want laws affecting the individual, or laws affecting a group, federal laws, or state laws? My main point of confusion goes back to my original question of, do you want precepts, or do you want legitimate laws. If you could please clarify this, then I would be more than happy to respond with an appropriate answer. "are the government not made up of the american people?" Your last question strikes me as being a bit open ended, but I will do my best to explain my answer. Though our government, in principle, is designed to be controlled by the people, it isn't quite so today. Referring back to my statement on how corporations and lobbyists are considered as one person. This removes the individual right of the people making up the corporation. Also take a look at campaign finance reform. An individual can only give a certain amount of money to a candidate while a corporation can give far more. So the corporation has more power than the individual. Therefor I would almost say that the government is made up of corporations and groups, which are made of people. Though these are made up of the people, it is impossible for the individual to be entirely represented, just as it is impossible to represent every citizen simply because of the ration between citizens and reps. So, in a way, the government is made up of the people, but in another way it is not. Things in the government have been done without the people's knowledge as well, so the government currently is not what the people necessarily intended, so because of that alone the government isn't made up purely of the people's ideas. I apologize for rambling, but I believe it was all relevant. I'm almost sure my answers will not satisfy you. I wrote them too quickly and didn't have a chance to explain them as thoroughly as I'd like for lack of time. I'm very sorry for that.

I think Ill address this based on each paragraph It really isn't a rash idea if you think about it these are the worst criminals we have on the planet, they have had the chance to live a life in our world. These criminals do have value but they are of more value in death than in life. For the world will be a safer place if the death penalty was in full swing. Though if they truly are sorry for what they have done then at the time of their death they shall be received into the Lord's arms. This is proven by Jesus' last words on Earth. The verse your referring to Matthew 13 does refer to weeds and wheat but in the sense of growing up and developing into something prior to the "weeds being pulled and burned by the bundles." This example proves my point because the "weeds/criminals" have grown alongside everyone else and at the point where they cause more harm then good they too are harvested and burned. This is my interpretation of the verse at hand. God does punish the souls so truly he judges after death, the death penalty is a means to get to that point in time. Grouping most of this paragraph the line between a new born baby and a murderer/rapist is just that. THIS IS THE LINE Its how a person lives their life and the chance to live. Courts are very black and white if proven guilty if you would like a definition of 1st degree 2nd degree and Rape Ill oblige but until then you should know the difference between them and what that means in our society. Also I'm open to hear any reason how a murderer could be a "help" to society please do go on. "Damage done is damage done!?!?!?!" ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?! Through this logic I could kill someone do some community service, get out kill your best friend do some more community service then kill you and well.... do some more community service. This is terrible logic and hardly worth debating its like giving an infinite free pass to any criminal. I'm not saying anymore on this absurd piece of thought. You give some alternatives for a sentence, these are busying sentences just buying time for someone on drugs or a misdemeanor not for someone convicted of any of the hanus crimes that have been listed. By taking the life of someone proven to have done such inconceivable harm to another adds value to the victims families lives and God will judge that felon then. Also I'd like to point out the lack of comparison between abortion and death penalty I don't know but I thought the debate was about how someone could believe in both not just the merits of the death penalty which is humane through lethal injection.

Death sentence should be allowed (in all counties) due to the following factors: A) The Criminal would be sentenced to death/killed. He/She cannot do any more crimes/offenses. B) The number of criminals go down. C)Almost everyone is scared of death which makes less criminals due to their fear of death. D) If he/she is not killed he/she will have around 2% (as of 1999) chance of escaping which will have a chance to do the same crime.

When someone is convicted of murder should they get rid of parole and automatically send them to death row?

Thanks to my opponent for his extensive response, and now I'll get into some rebuttal. 1. Rehabilitation I have two main responses to your points about rehabilitation being unnecessary for this group. For one, you do realize that there's a difference between a conviction that leads to life imprisonment and "life without parole," right? Many people who are given the maximum sentence get what's called an "indeterminate life sentence," which means they can go on parole after a decade or more.[1] I'd say this isn't made clear by Pro's distinction, and that at least some of these cases are likely to receive the death penalty. Those people can still enter back into the world. Second, rehabilitation doesn't just involve them. A system that focuses mainly on doling out the death penalty to these offenders affect others as well. Look at my [1] in the previous round, as I think it explains well how this measure of "justice" increases the problems of criminality and mental illness. These aren't just among those who get life sentences. Pro admits that these people need help, but would arbitrarily decide what makes one eligible based on how bad he feels the crime was. Someone who is mentally deranged often has no control over their actions, and we don't usually hold the mentally deranged directly responsible for their actions. I did provide some info on California and the cost of the death penalty in my last post. For more detailed analysis on a state-by-state level, there's many good websites.[2] My opponent talks about tens of thousands, ignoring the millions spent per inmate in Texas.[3] Costs of the death penalty are far higher, and if Pro would like to dispute that, he has to respond to these links directly. Pro says that "the death penalty is the ultimate punishment reserved for the worst society has to deal with such as serial killers, rapists, and crimes similar to that degree." That's interesting (and wrong, rapists aren't usually sentenced to life imprisonment). I mentioned the three-strikes law in California, where no such crime is committed.[4] I also mentioned treason, which also is not always equitable to killers and rapists. He provides no response to these points. And since Pro states later that "the majority of prisoners put to death were convicted of murder," the majority of people doing the maximum harms that he states don't require Pro's plan to be removed from society by death, though I'd argue that life imprisonment is just as effective. These arguments about not being trusted to have freedoms are all vengeful. Pro provides no reason benefit to society for denying them access. 2. The innocent I love how this works. So it's fine to sentence a bunch of innocent people to death because, at some point in the future, innocent people will be less likely to be sentenced to death? Every single one of these deaths count, and to a very large extent. The fact that my opponent is essentially dismissing their loss is nothing short of cruel. Pro says that we function under a system of "guilty until proven innocent." He doesn't support this " I see no citations, and no warrants. I've given several. But even if that is the case, it doesn't prove that that's the system we should be functioning under. Again, look back at my links, I gave plenty of analysis as to why "innocent until proven guilty" is extremely important. 3. Cruel and unusual punishment Pro practically concedes this argument by saying he's not going to argue whether any method of imposing the death penalty is humane. So long as he doesn't, this is engaging in torture, plain and simple. He provides no analysis as to why ending their lives is more effective than life imprisonment. 4. Unfair, unjust system Great, so we should address this problem, but in the meantime, let's throw more people into the system to ensure that many more innocent people die without a fair trial. I agree that we should fix the system, but that's not part of your plan, and even if it was (I have no idea how this would be implemented), that will take years if not decades. After they're done with their appeals, these people won't get another chance, and their lives will be forfeit. These lives shouldn't be riding on a system that's not well-enforced. Yes, we have contempt of court, but it's obviously not enough to prevent such a widespread problem. Remember, one in four condemned inmates have been represented by a court-appointed attorney who has been disciplined for professional misconduct. All that this system has done is point out the troublemakers, not remove them. You can call it "unfeasible," but my links prove that it happens all the time. But Pro practically spends this entire time conceding the point. "Those with enough money can become nearly untouchable in regards of the law." He's admitting that the death penalty is inherently classist. So long as that is true, it is the antithesis of justice. 5. Justice vs. vengeance Pro is essentially non-responsive to my points here. So long as my third contention has bearing, it is vengeance on that basis alone. Killing them for engaging in something we as a society loathe is also vengeance. Institutionalized torture and murder are vengeful, as it is aimed solely at causing harm to a person who harmed others. He provides no justification for the utilization of "an eye for an eye," and no reason why it should be applied here, but not elsewhere, as with the chopping off of thieves hands. As long as the expense of the death penalty remains far higher than the cost of life imprisonment, the reverse of Pro's statement is much more applicable: "my opponent has provided no justification to press these criminals into our capitol punishment system at our expense." The expense exists no matter the choice, it's just much higher in Pro's world. "If someone takes the life of another they are well aware that they could face the death penalty but choose to commit the crime anyway." I thought we might actually have an argument over this, but I'm glad to see that my opponent agrees with me: the threat of punishment doesn't prevent the crime. Now, Pro has absolutely no benefit to the death penalty. 6. Court clog and cost Pro doesn't address court clog at all, completely ignoring the fact that justices, policemen (as witnesses), and other staff will be extremely limited in their time to address other cases. That means fewer police on the streets and more delays on court cases (where people are forced to sit in jail for longer periods of time at higher cost without any establishment of guilt). His responses to cost are just restatements of his previous arguments with him doing some interesting calculations. Remember, my links showcase how any given person on death row can cost the state over $2 million. Now imagine if 50,000 people average even one-tenth that amount. We're talking about tens of billions of dollars. Take his larger number of 159,000, and it becomes astronomical. The last point Pro makes in response to my point about mental trauma is absolutely confounding. To state that a person getting life imprisonment is getting off "scot free" is beyond absurd. I don't think being forced to live out the rest of your life beyond bars is a ticket to freedom, and I don't see how this causes families mental distress. The reality is that families will have to sit through trial after trial, waiting with uncertainty at each step to see justice done. That's the problem. And it gets worse. It diverts millions away from critical services to homicide survivors. It splits families apart, and ruins relationships when they're most necessary.[6] With that, I kick it back to Pro. 1. http://online.ceb.com... 2. http://www.fnsa.org... 3. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 4. http://www.courts.ca.gov... 5. http://www.heritage.org... 6. http://ejusa.org...

Though that huge picture was unnecessary. Werewolves should receive equal rights to humans. They should be able to marry the same people, go to the same schools, and drink the same booze. Here is why: 1. Werewolves are people, too! Read the definition of werewolf that I have provided (and my opponent did not dispute): Werewolf: mythological and folkloric human with the ability to shape-shift into a wolf after being placed under a curse. This transformation is associated with the appearance of the full moon; vulnerable to silver bullets and arrows and cause others to become werewolves by biting them. I highlighted the word “human” because, unless my opponent has any evidence suggesting otherwise, humans are people. “Person” has many definitions, but we are going to use “a human as distinguished from an animal or thing. ” [1] Well, when the full moon is not out, a werewolf fulfills that definition. And in a free society, which consists of persons otherwise known as individuals [2], guarantees rights to those individuals. However, my opponent will obviously start to question the werewolf’s personhood, especially around full moon time. I will admit that werewolves are not people as wolves under the full moon. However, this brings me to my second point: 2. Werewolves do not have a choice In most works of fiction that includes werewolves, including works as old as “Bisclavret” (which was written about 1175)[3] and as new as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [4] describes the transformation into the werewolf as an unwanted affair. The definition also describes two scenarios which are not exactly desired: being cursed and bitten. It is unreasonable to punish the lycanthropes for crimes that they did not commit. 3. Werewolves are not always people This matters because the werewolf, when as a person, does not want to harm anybody. And trying to sentence a werewolf for something that he/she did as a non-person, and therefore not able to comprehend what they were doing, would be like sentencing a regular wolf for murder charges. It would be illogical and Kafka-esque, the only difference being that for most of the time the werewolf can feel remorseful-and wronged. 4. Werewolves can benefit society I have explained in the above that werewolves are people. People can benefit society. So it is only natural to say that werewolves can benefit society, maybe not as much as normal humans, but it would be nonsensical to bar them rights, and thereby harm society. I hand off this debate to my opponent. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...

1. Family- - Its is unfair to the family because they love the person who was wrongly convicted - The person who was wrongly convicted can't make money so it put burden on the family - Convicts whose families are impoverished could starve or get sick 2. Unfair to Convict - The convict has to endure months to years of punishment because of the governments mistakes - That is unfair and because the gov't cannot turn back the clocks, they should make the person's life (which they ruined) better.

My proposal is that there should be no reduction to the time sentenced, however I believe that the conditions could certainly be improved to reduce the amount of health risks. Beyond your whole argument, you used one major point, which I had said previously was completely true and that there was no way to argue against the fact that SC causes those health issues. Your main point was time in SC causes major health issues, and yes, all of it true. SC can take a toll on an inmate"s mental health, which again has been proven upon countless times. We must think of what causes these mental symptoms to occur. The only obvious answer is the conditions by which these inmates" live in and also what there regulations are. If we could change just a few regulations on the subject of SC, the amount of mentally ill inmates would decline dramatically. Regulations such as human contact, time spent in per day, and maybe even more personal items. They could be offered more human contact daily, possibly lessen the amount of hours from 23 to 16 a day, and have more personal items in SC. I don"t propose that we cut down their sentences in SC, but make changes to way SC is done. Concluding Statement: My opponent has made the inmates who are in solitary confinement sound like victims. We must remember that these men, women, and yes, children too, are in there for a reason. For the ones who are serving 16 to 30, or even their whole prison sentence in SC, we must keep in mind that they clearly have committed a heinous crime. So we mustn"t think of them as victims, but rather consider them as hardcore criminals. Hardcore criminal who deserve to serve their time in the harshest ways possible. By harshest ways possible, I absolutely in no way mean that they should serve their time in the current conditions and regulations that are in place for SC as of right now. To not let them be completely restricted of their freedoms, but to have a considerable amount of freedoms, which can be done my reforms. Which in fact, in some states, they are already being put in place. To conclude, we have to be clear on the idea of prison and SC. Prison is meant to restrict ones freedoms because of a crime they have committed, also so is SC as well. We all know that criminals don"t deserve the same freedoms as us, instead they need to pay the price of their crime. Solitary Confinement, after reformations, will no doubt, make inmates serve their true time. Additional Sources: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.aclumaine.org... -I would like to thank my opponent for introducing and executing a very well, organized argument. Pleasure debating with you.

Instead of addressing entire paragraphs, I'll choose specific quotes and try to analyze them within their context as well as possible. "These are the worst criminals we have on the planet, they have had the chance to live a life in our world." Really? I wasn't aware that there was a one-strike-you're-out thing for life. Besides, the only people who suffer the death penalty are those who have already entered the court system. It seems far more appropriate to even give a lifetime jail sentence than a death sentence, as it still keeps the criminal away from the victims and the rest of the world, but doesn't kill them. I personally would prefer even more leniency than that, but this isn't about what I would prefer; this is a logical analysis of when murder is appropriate and when it isn't. No matter how horrible the person you kill, no matter how much bureaucracy involved, murder is always murder. So if the court system orders and executes the death of a 3-time convicted rapist and murderer, there's hardly any difference in the result than if that same rapist and murderer was unconvicted of those crimes and was killed in the street by a family member looking for revenge. Revenge with paperwork doesn't make it any less wrong. "The line between a new born baby and a murderer/rapist is just that. THIS IS THE LINE" That's a very, very, very thick line to span over that much. After all, according to you, there's a lot in between. What if the murderer claims self-defense? What if the second-degree murderer is a politician, perhaps the Commander-in-Chief himself? "I'm open to hear any reason how a murderer could be a "help" to society please do go on. " Why, thank you, I will. THE SAME WAY ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING DOES--get a job, raise a family, donate to charity, take a bike instead of a car, invent a new hairdryer, whatever. You seem to assume that, if someone murdered someone else, that's the only event in their entire life. People frequently make an assumption with similar basis that all people other than heterosexuals are obsessed with their sexuality. A murder is only a small portion of a man's life, albeit with a large effect. If you don't agree with the previous argument, then answer me this: how does killing the criminal "help" society? If locking him behind bars does the same job, then what does the government do but damage? It's traumatic for everyone he's known, who do not consist solely of the person he's murdered and any accomplices he may have had. By the way, I expect that an argument to this point will be that capital punishment is justified, while actual murder is not. But look at it this way: legalized murder is taking place every day. People get awarded for it. Many innocent people have been killed in Iraq by American soldiers, accidentally or not, and their killers have never been so much as brought to trial. That's first degree murder, isn't it? Yet again, I ask where the line falls between the innocent and the guilty, the fetus and the murderer. "This is terrible logic and hardly worth debating its like giving an infinite free pass to any criminal." I agree; the community service idea BY ITSELF is not a good method of dealing with people. I never intended that it would be employed alone, but I guess I failed to communicate that. Besides, my example was simply an example; disproving it still doesn't disprove my primary argument, that killing anyone for any reason is a crime against nature and that there are better ways to handle the situation. And by the way, a patronizing tone, while a tempting debate tactic, isn't going to help your case. It's the issue we're talking about, not me; keep it to the issue. "Also I'd like to point out the lack of comparison between abortion and death penalty I don't know but I thought the debate was about how someone could believe in both not just the merits of the death penalty which is humane through lethal injection." I never said we were comparing Abortion and Capital Punishment. I said that it's hypocritical to support one and not the other, since (I added later) both are forms of murder. I can go into detail, if you like, about Abortion, but that's not where we really seem to disagree, so I felt it was pointless to approach. However, I'll approach it anyway. The typical reason to not support abortion is because it is the killing of a living human being. If you support the death penalty, than I don't see why killing a child who will destroy a family or a life is much of a leap. Personally, I don't really consider fetuses to be complete living beings until they are disconnected from their umbilical cord and begin thinking for themselves. Even if you don't believe this, though, it's oxymoronic to support the killing of a murderer but not an unborn child. Pets are "put down" to relieve their pain all the time; if the baby is not yet born, then an abortion may be a way of putting it down to quickly end a life of pain. The majority of abortions are to keep a baby from being born into an unhealthy situation: if convicts should be killed to make the world a better place, why shouldn't unwanted children? It would also make the world a better place to not have them. (I don't believe this--it's just parallel to the argument in favor of capital punishment) I know I'm not going to get the last say in this, and the last word always makes a huge difference, but I'm going to ask that everyone compare the logic here, not vote in defence of your own opinions. Hopefully that goes without saying. Thank you again, Jokerduede, for accepting such a controversial debate.

I will address my opponent's arguments as Obs. 1, Obs. 2, I will group both Sections 1 and 2. His first observation sounds reasonable, since I believe it is just claiming the flaws in empirical evidence. I agree to this and since the only evidence I use in my case is purely analytical, this doesn't apply to me. The second observation is less clear, I believe it claims that the affirmative has the burden to prove that citizens inherently have the right to vote in this democratic society before they loose it. If this is true, then I accept it. If it falls under the idea of sections one and two, you cross apply the arguments against them to this observation as well. My opponent accepts my standards and definitions by not constructing his own. Both sections one and two of my opponent's case state how it is impossible to measure value and criterion on this topic. Here are the reasons you reject this argument: 1) THIS IS LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE. Value/Criterion debate! To make the argument that you can't possibly measure value and criterion in the debate that is centered around value and criterion is hypocritical at best. My opponent makes a PERFORMANCE CONTRADICTION by debating this topic with this argument. He is basically saying: "I debate that you can't debate" 2) This ISN'T POLICY DEBATE. Okay, this might not be a whole another reason to affirm, but nonetheless, I am reenforcing the biggest point against the NC which is that they are directly breaking the rules of LD debate by making this argument. Try it again in CXD, buddy! 3) My opponent argues that evidence is flawed in his observation, whereas most of his actual contentions are evidence. Hmmmm... 4) None of my opponent's arguments legitimately fall within the acceptable perimeters of LD debate 5) My opponent's attempts to shove burdens on the affirmative only prove further that he cannot legitimately prove reasons to negate. If I were to accept the burdens that the negative throws, it is impossible to affirm the resolution! This is obviously unfair, 6) Fairness is essential toward debate since there is no way to measure the better opponent and thus no way to evaluate the resolutional proposition, also There has to be some equal standard to decide which interpretation is best for the resolution, this is impossible to achieve with my opponent's arguments I encourage an affirmative ballot for these reasons and await my opponent's rebuttal.


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

The perspectives and necessities of incarcerated individuals are currently not being advocated for. Matters like prison congestion and...
In reality, a limited number of inmates earn sufficient income to be subject to taxation. Regardless, the entitlement to vote does not stem from the duty to pay taxes. In numerous nations, individuals commence earning wages and contributing taxes prior to reaching the voting age (especially if they depart from school at the earliest opportunity). This suggests that the privilege to vote is extended to those who can be relied upon to exercise it judiciously. Those found guilty of grave crimes leading to imprisonment have demonstrated a disregard for societal norms. Consequently, they cannot be trusted to vote prudently in the best interest of society; many might merely support candidates advocating lenient sentences for criminals. The concerns of prisoners are already addressed by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and official prison oversight bodies, which guarantee they are not mistreated. They do not merit additional representation through the voting process.

Sir, the global poor struggle to survive everyday, looking for food, shelter and water. And yet, proposition want criminals, disgusting people to go into a jail with free healthcare, food and water. On opposition side, he wants the criminals to be given such privileges that righteous people are not given. I find it absurd, that disgusting people, who do not follow laws, who harm people (because the death penalty is often used for large and serious crimes) should be given basic rights that they have already violated. Thus ends my first argument. My second argument is that the state's responsibility to improve the state. That includes eliminating the bad parts of the state. Those people who have been deserved to have a death penalty, are rotten, and can: 1. Hurt the righteous people of the state by: a) Their crimes can hurt people b) Their being in prison is unfair and unjust c) their resources being given to them must be obtained by tax, found from the righteous and just people of the good community I have showed that these people are hurting the community, economy, and how that prop's argument of morality, stands no longer, because prop are withholding rights from good men, and giving those rights to disgusting people. I rest my case.

Thank you, both for your thorough response and willingness to pick up such a hot debate. I was a little startled, though, that you "advocate the death penalty because ...with out [these convicted criminals] in it the world is a better place." That seems to me to be a bit of a rash statement, particularly given your statement that you are an "avid Catholic". Having attended a Catholic school for many years, I have repeatedly been told that, according to your faith and many others around the world, all people possess a human dignity given to them by God, the creator of all things. Anything created by God, which is anything and anyone on the planet, is therefore valuable. Even the most disreputable or those who have committed the most heinous crimes never deserve harm or the intention of harm from others. The gospel of Luke supports this strongly, as does that of Matthew. For instance, Matthew 13 contains a story called approximately "the weeds among the wheat". If you request, I can explain the story in detail, but its moral is that God is responsible for the punishment of souls, not us on earth. That being said, I also refuse to believe that even the worst criminals do not benefit the world in some way. I do not believe that this benefit is from their crime, or even anything related to it; but these are living human beings, with relationships, families, and friends. How can one choose to draw a line--for instance, second degree murder--upon a set of human lives? Such things cannot be classified upon a court sentence alone, as some may be capable of reform, some may have only aided in the crime due to personal suffering, and some may be innocent, even if the court has evidence that proves them guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where do you draw the line or even a chart showing when a life is no longer worthwhile, showing some dotted curve between unborn children and mass murderers? And who are we to draw that line at all? That being said, I do not believe that we should simply let them go; when damage is done, damage is done. But there are so many other, more responsible and less harmful punishments that can be used. Service hours have always been one of my favorites, though for some, a mental ward may be the only healthy setting. Regardless, while rape and murder may result in loss of life or dignity, more loss of life and dignity solves no problem.

I believe that members of 'gangs' should be allowed to join the U.S. Military, because (no ill-feelings) most of them do have experience with a firearm. Although I highly recommend an extensive background check, I do believe that once they've served their country, they'll know better than to use their military-training to terrorize streets. If they do, they should be given a heavy penalty in court.

//1. Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts.// //My opponent lastly claims that because people have been falsely accused of crimes, it is legally permissible to lie under the law. Of course he did not show that it was legal, only that the state is very strict with child molestation cases as it should be. While unfortunate that this does happen, it is not actually legal to do so.// In other words, it does happen regardless of perception of legal. //2. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another.// Is it not the Court systems job to protect the certain rights given to us by God. If our declaration of independence, the basis of our entire government system, is so bold as to mention the creator, why is it that our court system is not willing to even consider the creator, or the morals and values instilled by him/her, in the writings that they have given us? //3. If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing's maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge.// My opponent brings a very democratic stance towards this statement, arguing that a judges knowledge of the law gives him unequally regarding his ability to make decisions. If all men are created equal as our declaration of independence states how can a judge be more equal than you or me in regards to making a decision. Isn't this a violation of the declaration of independence? To All Those Reading. It seems we are out of time I leave you with this thought. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal(men and judges alike), that they are endowed by their Creator(God) with certain unalienable Rights(the right to have morals be judged in a courthouse), that among these are Life(without false accusation and persecution), Liberty(without fear of being punished falsely) and the pursuit of Happiness(without being falsely labeled by a court, and guilty parties walking free). "1 for "2008 A Colorado judge ordered on January 22, 2008, the immediate release of Tim Masters after finding that exculpatory evidence had been withheld from his defense team. DNA research by Richard Eikelenboom from Independent Forensic Services in Nunspeet also cast doubt on his conviction with the Peggy Hettrick murder case in 1987 in Fort Collins. However, the DNA was that of the victim's boyfriend and may not be indicative of a crime.[55] David Scott was released from prison after DNA evidence determined he was not the man who killed 89-year-old Loretta Keith of West Terre Haute.[56] Lynn DeJac, convicted of killing her daughter, was exonerated after a judge overturned her conviction based on new DNA evidence implicating her former boyfriend in the killing.[57] Rachel Jernigan, convicted of bank robbery in 2001, was released from prison after another woman confessed to the crime.[58] Willie Earl Green, sent to prison in 1983 for the murder of a woman, was released after a change in testimony.[59] Robert Gonzales, a mentally retarded man who falsely confessed to the slaying of an 11-year-old girl in 2005 was released from jail after a national database matched DNA in the case to another man in custody for another crime.[60] Patrick Waller, who was convicted for a robbery in which four people were abducted and a woman was raped, has been exonerated.[61] Raymond H. Jonassen spent four months in jail based on information that turned out to be false.[62] Dean Cage was exonerated of a rape conviction after 14 years in prison.[63] Walter Swift was wrongly convicted of raping a pregnant Detroit woman in 1982.[64] Levon Junior "Bo" Jones, sentenced to death for the 1987 murder and robbery of Leamon Grady, was released after nearly 15 years in prison.[65] James Lee Woodard was released from prison after DNA tests and changes in witness testimony proved that he did not rape and murder his 21-year-old girlfriend in 1980.[66] Cynthia Sommer, convicted of killing her Marine husband with arsenic to pay for breast implants, was cleared after new tests showed no traces of poison.[67] Thomas Clifford McGowan was freed after spending nearly 23 years in prison for a rape he did not commit.[68] Nathaniel Hatchett, who spent 12 years in prison for rape, was released after prosecutors decided to drop charges based on DNA evidence that shows he was not the rapist.[69] Glen Chapman, who spent 14 years on death row, was released after the District Attorney dismissed murder charges against him.[70] Guy Randolph was exonerated by a court judge after the district attorney's office acknowledged that he had been wrongly convicted.[71] Hattie Douglas's charge of murdering her 11-month-old son by poisoning him with alcohol was dismissed in May 2008. The murder charge was dropped after new tests cast doubt on the theory that the death of her son was caused by alcohol.[72] Ada Joanne Taylor, Joseph White, Thomas Winslow, and three others were wrongly convicted in a murder and rape case[73] Ada Joanne Taylor confessed to police of being part of the crime after she was told that she would be the first woman to receive the death penalty in Nebraska.[74] Arthur Johnson was exonerated after spending 15ï¿½ years in jail.[75] 2009 Alan Beaman, convicted for the stabbing and strangling to death of his ex-girlfriend, was exonerated.[76] Timothy Cole was convicted in 1985 for a rape he did not commit, he was posthumously exonerated in early February 2009 after serving 14 years. He died in prison in 1999.[77] Thaddeus Jimenez spent more than 16 years in jail before his conviction was tossed.[78] Sgt. Brian W. Foster's conviction for rape was overturned.[79] Joseph R. Fears, Jr. was convicted in 1984 for two rapes. His sentence was overturned after DNA evidence proved that he didn't commit one of the rapes.[80] Paul House was exonerated after spending 22 years on death row for murder.[81] Joshua Kezer's 60 years prison sentence for second-degree murder was overturned. Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said: "The criminal justice system failed in the investigative and charging stage, it failed at trial, it failed at post-trial review and it failed during the appellate process."[82] Bill Dillon's life sentence for murder was overturned. He was convicted in 1981 based on John Preston's testimony that he and his scent-tracking German-Shepherd connected Dillon to the killer's bloody t-shirt. However, a 2007 DNA test proved that Dillon's DNA did not match the DNA on the t-shirt. Hundreds of other convictions based on the alleged abilities of the same dog are now in doubt.[83] Darryl Burton. Wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 24 years.[84] 2011 Cornelius Dupree was wrongfully convicted of rape and robbery and imprisoned for over 3 decades.[85] "2 And For all the others wrongfully convicted throughout the centuries that I couldn't fit in 8000 characters or less. These are just 30 of multiple hundreds of wrongfully accused persons in just 3 years. I ask you, If these persons moral background was taken into consideration at the time of trial how many wouldn't have been falsely imprisoned? (just a side note, it took 32 reasons to petition for our independence from Britain.)(Yes God is mentioned in the declaration of independence, why not in courts?) Read more: 1 http://wiki.answers.com... 2 Read more: http://www.answers.com... I would like to say thank you to my opponent for this debate, it has been a pleasure discussing this topic with you. I look forward to the results.

Let me respond to your rebuttal one by oneMurderers could be rehabilitated:An eye for an eye is a good policy for murderers. They deserve to lose their life because they killed innocent people. If murderers get a second chance than most potential murderers will still commit murder. Giving murderers a second chance does not deter future murders. If murderers get a second chance than some of them might commit murder after they get out of prison. Some people do commit a crime again after they get out of prison. The government shouldn't take the risk of that happening. The government should keep inncocent people safe by making sure that murderers lose their life instead of getting a second chance. The government should only use the death penalty when there is clear evidence of murder. This way innocent people will not get the death penalty. There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:I agree that teaching moral values will prevent people from commiting murder but that's not the only way to do it. The government should also prevent people from commiting murder by making the punishment is a lot worse. There are studies that show that the death penalty deters future murders. The studies are described in this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com... the death penaty may not have an effect on the murder rate but abolishing it would not deter future murders. If the death penalty is done in a painful way than it will deter murder by even more because more people will be scared to commit murder. Why would anyone want to get killled in a painful way? The way they should use the death penalty is by shooting the murderer with a gun. The key to lowering the murder rate is teaching moral values and scaring potential murderers by using harsher punishments.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:If the court is not sure if the murder happned by accident, for self defense or intentionally than they should not give the defendant a punishment. The court should get clear evidence and find out if the muder happened intentionally or not before they give the defendant a punishment.Conclusion:It was a pleasure having this debate with you. The voters will vote for the person that did a better job debating. Good Luck on your last chance to argue.

Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. It is unfair to the citizens if non-citizens are allowed to vote. They are not legally permanent residents so they should have no say in such matters as politics that can impact the lives of permanent residents in a way they do not like. Even if they are trying to become permanent residents, it still shouldn't be up to them. What if they don't end up becoming citizens?

Yes the system made these rights but then logically people adore the things they create no matter how stupid they are (example children). You claim that they are "inalienable" and then if I put you under the gun you will quote them at me but give a person power they will use it vindictivly. Your rules only make sense if you follow them, the idea contractinisum is you do this for gain, you lose the gain by breaking rules but if you label a rule as being linked to personhood you must respect it even when they break faith, your argument could be applied to say that if you disagree with society (over any issue this could be slavery, pedophilia, and other such abominations) if they are tried you can kill um, hello bob ewel.

| My previous attempt at putting this up was reply-bombed by somebody who "accidentally" entered the debate without any intension of competing. | Right. Keep in mind, when I say 'rights', I mean the sort of thing, like, the right to work, the right to travel. Those sort of things aren't rights. Rights are things that are unnaturally imposed on others for "humanitarian" purposes, which has no basis on reality. This isn't a matter of freedom, either. It's a matter of what's good for this country. We nearly lost the election over those dumb voting chicks who "Went With Hillary". We can't afford to let America rot from the inside out just because the majority of dumb, liberal women vote for the next 'Woman For President'. Because it's not about who runs, or what their experience is, or how they'll improve America. It's about the image. The idea. The spectacle. It's all a lie, a fabrication. In Austria, a far-right nationalist candidate lost over a far left feminist candidate. This wasn't a democratic election, as they had to purposely bring in foreign voters just to prevent him from winning. It wasn't moral or just, and this is just proof of that. https://youtu.be... http://www.dailystormer.com...... Women should not be able to vote. They shouldn't have ever gained that ability, but we became soft as a people and allowed this to happen. Now, they're tearing up the democratic system, always, ALWAYS voting left. ALWAYS voting Democrat. Always. They can't think ahead. It's inherent in their biology. It's not such a bad trait, but women are quickly trying to do things that they simply can't. They cannot grasp what's good for a country, and they can't think strategically (despite what the US Army wants you to think!). My views are very simple, in that I feel that women should not be able to vote, should stay at home, and need to take care of their children. Men cannot raise children on their own, and neither can a woman. But there's a delicate balance between both that needs to be nurtured, grown, for the child to be successful. They need to be told 'no'. They need discipline. They also need a father figure to look up to, and in turn, a mother figure. They need proper idols that don't obsess over sex, or openly do degenerate actions or things that turn them into unhealthy adults without inhibition and self control. That's what this generation is lacking. A good moral compass and self control. And every day that we don't enforce these things that I've pointed out, will only lead to further woodrot within the system. As long as we forget where our roots lay, and where we need to go as a society and as a people, we'll always be lost, easy to tamper with and to warp to others' needs. Women are at the heart of the next generation. They bear the seed and give birth to their children. It's in everyone's best interests that they do not forget about their sole duty to mankind, to reproduce. We cannot allow ourselves to go extinct over gambling and silly notions of 'Women's Rights' and 'Feminism'. Egalitarianism is for the weak and stupid. Further more, I'd like to note that while feminism is taking it's last breaths in America, the cancer it is, is alive and well in Europe, pushing nationalism to the far back of the spectrum. I'd like to emphasize this, again. Egalitarianism is a Marxist idea that leads to cultural dissonance and chaos. It was made by the Marxist to poison the youth' minds. Feminism is just Egalitarianism with a hint of female superiority complex. By saying all this, I do not mean to say that I "hate women", or that I disrespect them in any way. They have their harmless charms, but in the end should stick to that, and only that. Rules: No personal attacks. Keep it civil. Make each reply short and concise, for easy reading. Try to look at things from the other person's viewpoint. Sometimes, people can be right, even if you personally disagree with them. Let the games begin.

I agree, no judgment by any court is absolute. But if a heinous crime is committed with all evidence directed toward conviction, then that criminal must be sentenced to life in prison without, and i mean without parole, to protect our society. This leaves your option of future evidence regarding the case viable, as the convicted could be released if evidenced ever proved the conviction to be wrong.

I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. "However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: "Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed." "Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference." This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts