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

Should felons who have served their time regain their voting rights?

Felons who have completed their sentences should not automatically be granted the right to vote. When they committed a crime, they forfeited certain rights, including the right to vote. Although they have served their time, the restoration of voting rights should not be a given.

Should individuals with a criminal history be permitted to participate in elections?

Individuals with a criminal history should not be afforded the opportunity to vote. When they engaged in unlawful activities and were incarcerated, they relinquished their voting rights. Despite having served their sentences, the reinstatement of their voting privileges should not be automatic.

There once was a man who killed a couple of people, went into jail, came out to kill more people, went back in again, and killed more people after coming out. There wouldn't have been so many deaths if a death sentence was introduced. This may seem inhumane, but since when did killing people become humane? In some countries, there is no death sentence, and since there isn't, it should be introduced. First of all, death sentences reduce the number of cold criminals behind bars. They carried out serious offences, now they have to pay the price, it all seems pretty normal. Secondly, the organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them. This is a good way to repay all the lives that the criminal has killed. Thirdly, a death sentence introduced could decrease the number of murders every year. When pre-criminals hear that a death sentence is being introduced, they usually stop. This is a good way to stop serious assault and murder and a way to save lives. Thus the death sentence should be introduced to countries who don't have such a law.

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.

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).

The Law is in place to say, "Idiots do not get an opinion." Human Rights, are an illusion provided by the institute that made that decision, provides your security, education, media, economy and Food, and that "Right" is that Psychos get a fair trial, regarding all Human Rights, except their Freedom of Choice (preference).

"Look, the whole point of this idea is to make politicians own up to their screwups and experience firsthand how they have alienated the world and even many Americans from trusting the US government because of their actions and screwups."I'm sorry but I'm still not getting this. If we wanted them to experience what damage they've done, it only makes sense to punish them the American Way because (a) despite America being a global power, the actions of our politicians still mainly affect us here at home and (b) letting foreigners get their own revenge is pointless, as the exiles would likely end up in jail (same as any common criminal) or get assassinated. Or they could simply move to a friendlier country (as my opponent has conceded), and spend the rest of their lives there in luxury, happy and free as birds. The best way to deliver justice, by my opponent's own logic, would be to give them whatever they gave us. In other words, if someone raises taxes or pursues socialist polices, his own business or salary should be limited and massive punishment fines should be levied against him, rendering him unable to get rich or succeed again. Sanctioned cruel and unusual punishment? Cane him everytime he says something remotely unpatriotic! Took away overtime pay for workers? Send him to the cotton fields! I just think that this scenario makes much more sense then Pro's, which would be utterly pointless, not really a punishment, and accomplish absolutely nothing.Seeing as my opponent has failed the burden of proof, I urge a Con vote.

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.

i repeat. (this debat thing is screwy and keeps sending me outdated emails that i need to update.) the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live." the right to life is definitely in dispute. As i adressed in my case, there is a social contract which provides for a reciprical relationship between the citizens and the government. while the governments holds the obligation to provide life, liberty, and the right to property, and the bill of rights even defends this, the constitution does not protect these rights if the person breaks the social contract. in this case the person would commit murder and thus break the social contract. thus, the governemnt, upon convictions, is no longer obligated to adhear to that person's rights. so for this reason they do not have the right to life anymore. Since, after all, why should the government be obligated to a person's rights if they are interfering with the rights of another and so blatantly disregard them? "People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life." my opponent is likely referring to this list. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... However, the very problem with the use of this argument is that this is an issue with the justice system, not the death penalty. The justice system requires that the jury convict "without a shadow of a doubt" and considering there is already a deterence for juries to agree to the death penalty, it is not as if the justice system weilds capital punishment lightly. I'd also like to bring into question the list itself. If you view the list, few enough people were acquitted due to DNA evidence. furthermore, the proportionality does not make sense. It would be no worse for a person to die by the death penalty before proof of innocence appears than if a person died after life in prison and were acquitted after they died. "A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient." The point of hate crimes is not to provide a deterence in society, for who would be deterred if they are crazy enough to kill someone, but rather to provide for proportionality in the criminal law system. To rebut the note about hte families, first of all the family could also be traumatized that a member would commit murder. furthermore, is the victim not dead? is the victim's families and frends not traumatized? did they do anything wrong? no they did not. Furthermore, to use such a case would be appeal to pity in the court systems. the fact is that some crimes deserve death, and if we are to consider the family's feelings of the murderer, the just look at the family of the victim to see more devistation. Also, if to reaffirm my own points, there can be no reciprical relationship between the state and its individual populations when they are the ones who broke the social contract in the first place. Since they broke this social contract they apparently do not have any regard to that social contract.

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.

Well now then lets wrap this debate up doing the quote thing "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. " There are several differences between life in prison and the death penalty. Truly life in prison is a death sentence only one that takes years to complete costing the tax payers more than executing the person. So ask your self which is the more efficient way to punish a convicted criminal? "Revenge with paperwork doesn't make it any less wrong" The difference here being that it is not revenge if done through the right channels and have been proven guilty, it is wrong to exact revenge if the accused is not convicted or acquitted. Doing the punishment the right way isn't revenge though killing in cold blood is. "Thats a very thick line to span over that much" No it really isn't the self defense is taken care of during the trial for a jury of peers to decide. Its pretty dam black and white if you look at it your guilty or not guilty of the several crimes to be punished by death. If the President was found guilty of 1st degree murder then yes like every other person should be subjected to the same person. Thats really idiotic to place people with titles above everyother person in America. "You seem to assume that, if someone murdered someone else, that's the only event in their entire life" It is a deciding moment in that persons life they could have done those things you listed prior. The fact is these people ruined other peoples lives, whose to say they couldn't have invented something uber sweet? Murder is not a pass time just something to do on a whim and go about life. This may not be the only moment in their life but it is one that will alter it permanently. "It's traumatic for everyone he's known" Yes it is Id imagine finding something like my wife murdered someone, but the effect is different. This effect spans over the fact that the felon did something illegal and morally wrong and must be punished. The family would be sad that the person did it and must be punished. "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" Interesting point though this argument is pretty much moot due to the fact its based on opinions of the war. The killings have been for people guilty of much more than one murder. And any accidental deaths are just that accidental. Unless you can prove otherwise this is a moot point not worth voting on. "Patronizing tone, while a tempting debate tactic, isn't going to help your case" Sorry didn't mean to patronize but the example you used and tried to justify is absurd I agree this too is a moot point but I found it very difficult to swallow if this truly was your plan for murderers, etc. "Explaining opinions and rationalization for abortion sorry just couldn't find a quote I liked. .. " I consider a baby to be alive and a person the moment the sperm touches the egg because at that moment the body begins to send chemicals out to prepare and life begins to form, it soon has a heartbeat prior to realizing that the women is pregnant. Again please vote on the issues above not on any preconceived notions.

Con argues not voting is a valid political choice and I agree. In compulsory voting countries the ballot usually has an option to represent a non-vote for voters who are not sure. I argue CV would secure every citizen a vote, ensuring proper representation from their government. There are also a few other logical benefits from CV. We know that discouraged and poor aren't voting in non-CV countries. Why not put in place a system where these underrepresented groups are assured a vote. Australia, a CV-Country, votes on Sundays and even accepts doctors notes to ensure fairness. The right not to vote shouldn't be mistaken as "your vote doesn't matter". CV may infringe on a persons fundamental freedom a little, maybe its worth it.


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

Felons should regain their voting rights post-sentence completion in the contemporary United States. To ensure clarity, I'm advocating that felons should maintain their voting rights, irrespective of their criminal history. Here's a brief overview of the current situation surrounding this contentious issue: "The concept of denying criminals their voting rights originated in ancient Greece and Rome, where a state known as 'civil death' was imposed. This state involved the loss of property, the right to appear in court, the prohibition on entering into contracts, and the revocation of voting rights. English colonists brought this practice to America, but most aspects were eventually abolished, except for the disenfranchisement of felons, which remains prevalent in certain parts of the U.S. today."(1) "In the 2008 elections, 5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were barred from voting due to a felony conviction. This figure includes 1.4 million African-American men, over 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences."(1) "The U.S. states' approaches to felon disenfranchisement differ significantly. In Maine and Vermont, felons retain their voting rights even while incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their voting rights, unless pardoned by the governor. Virginia and Florida offer programs to facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 distinct approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons regain their voting rights upon the completion of their sentence. Some states require ex-felons to wait for a specific period after serving their sentence before their rights can be restored, while others necessitate an application for the restoration of voting rights."(1) As the proponent of this change to the status quo, I acknowledge the burden of proof and will affirm the resolution. The debate format will consist of 4 rounds, with 6,000 characters per round and a 72-hour time limit. (1)http://www.ncsl.org...

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.

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...

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." My opponent's resolution was that the death penalty should be legalized. He has not rebutted any of my reasons as to why the death penalty should not be legalized, and has even given a proof for my first reasoning. He has also supplied an alternative way to penalize those convicts, thus saving me the trouble. Penalize-to subject to a penalty, as a person. http://dictionary.reference.com... The resolution is negated.

I disagree because I killed a man once and I was looking at life, but I got a plea bargain and only got 30 years and now I am out of prison because I broke out. Don't tell anyone though I am in hiding. So I will describe what I did first I killed the man then I ran away. Then I got caught and went to prison. The first thing I did when I got there was dropping the soap. This really sucked. Then I dug with my hands through the wall in my cell and escaped. Now I am talking to you. DO NOT TELL ANYONE THOUGH I DONT WANT TO GO BACK.

Whenever there is an election, people are encouraged to vote. However, there are also people who think that voting is just a waste of time and that nothing good will come out of it, even how many times it has been done. It"s hard to imagine if majority of the populace thinks this way, because if that happen democracy has already failed.people should vote because it is a way for every citizen to show their loyalty and concern to the country that they are serving. If one thinks that voting is unimportant, others will do to, and eventually everybody will think that it is useless.People vote because each person"s opinion matters and get counted. It is a way for citizens to voice out their hopes and dreams for their country by choosing the leaders that shares the same political and social ideals with them.The reasons why should people vote are countless, may it be as a privilege, a right, or a duty. Jst think of the people who fought for country jst for us 4 our freedom shld we forget dem

I already pointed your flaw but it seems your hard headed head is too ignorant to listen to my conclusions, very well if this is the only way to get your attention, i just bash your arguments. "I pick we do pamper prisoners, most of our tax money that we pay go to our prisoners. They are being fed like babies, they have alot of freedom in the cell except leaving it. Most of them dont mind staying in prison so that shows that they are not really being punished for their acts. If you are being sent to prison for a death penalty, thats immediate life sentence, they should not be able to live any longer, but yet we still allow them to have fun, smoke play cards make friends which is not fair and smart" I say we should not pamper them at all. We should make them work for their crime. If we make the prison look like a paradise, it would raise the amount of crimes as everyone would want to get in this "paradise". We shouldn't pamper the prison as most criminals in the prison will then finally feel guilty about his crimes and will think twice before committing another crime. Also, allowing them to play cards and all that things should be reduced to only sport at breaks as allowing card games would make the prisoners feel home. Mind i remind you, prison is a building where all criminals are stored. Criminals should be punished because of their crimes, not to enjoy their prison sentence.

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.

Criminal justice systems are not always accurate. Numerous cases are reported of victims being convicted to death, or life in prison. The right to such does not ensure it will be acted on. Particularly dogs who have committed an assault on persons are a risk to society and removing the animal from area will not ensure another attack will be avoided. Humans convicted of longer sentences is not correlated with the act of being committed again. Allowing convicted persons the ability to act sooner then later is not of effect by it actually happening. It will happen. Sooner or later. Additionally the Human Declaration of Human Rights provides some great articles that would benefit Animals. However the question at point: Giving Animals The Same Rights As Humans This includes all rights not a selected few. If the question was to select a few rights, the conditions would have already been met due to Animal protection Acts. However this is not the question, every right must be equal and by such they would be rewarded the right to education, the right to marriage and the right to vote. Such rights, as you admitted would not be apply-able to animals and so - Animals should not be given the same rights as humans. Your argument continued the fallacy of Strawman. You did not address the question making it an easier question to attack. Animals should not be given all the rights of humans.

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.

Thank you again for accepting and posting your case ===Attacks=== V- my opponent states his value is morality. Is it moral to deny the jury the right to decide upon his/her own judgement? It is not moral therefore my opponents value is flawed VC- my opponents value criterion is flawed because my opponents value is flawed. if my opponent trys to achieve a flawed value then that would only destroy his case and destroy the society C1- Jury nullification does not undermine the government as the government, if just, would want to give rights to its citizens. A- of course juries may be bias. that is inevitable. But the chances of all the juries to be bias is nearly impossible B- one individual will not overturn the whole judgement as there is more than one jury (my opponent skipped sub point c) D- This argument is the same as his C1 so as I attacked C1 this is attacked as well C2- This is not a contention so much as an UNTRUE statement. courts believe that the right to nullify according to their judgement as courts are just A- My opponent didn't provide a warrant for this statement B- Judges are just therefore this statement is false ===Observation=== My opponent didn't provide sources, warrants, evidence or any cards to prove his points ===Defence=== V- as I stated, people being bias is inevitable so the judge could be bias as well so neg is unjust. Since there is only one judge he can overturn all of the decision vc- if juries can be lenient then so can the judge so that statement is false All contentions- The resolution states " a just CHECK on government" therefore Ur statement is wrong. Putting power in the hands of the people checks the government ===Voters=== My opponent did not provide sufficient attacks to my case nor did he defend his case properly. He also did not provide sources for ANY of his arguments and his case is flawed it every angle. For all of these reasons I strongly urge an Affirmative vote Thank you


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

Felons who have completed their sentence should be allowed to vote. I argue that any citizen who has fulfilled their legal obligations should regain their right to vote, including felons who have served their time. Because the foundation of a democracy is equal representation, if felons are to be disenfranchised, the onus is on those who oppose their voting rights to justify this exclusion. Denying voting rights to felons undermines democracy, as they are a distinct social group with their own needs and interests. Without representation, they are vulnerable to exploitation, and this exploitation is extensive. Issues like employment, housing, and voting rights affect felons more than any other group, yet they are the only group without a say. It is easy for society to claim it has felons' best interests at heart, but without their input, these claims are untested and potentially misguided. I anticipate a counterargument that felons should not be allowed to vote because they have shown poor judgment. However, many voting adults also exhibit poor judgment, and we permit them to vote. Moreover, felons who have completed their sentence often have a clearer understanding of the issues affecting them than the average adult. If we are to justify excluding felons, we must have a more compelling reason than past mistakes.

//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.

Prisoners who are executed are abominations to society, but the family is not responsible for what they have done so they have a right to bury them. In a regular graveyard, there are just bodies, it doesn't matter whether they are good or bad people, they are just corpses. If he is your father, and he claims his innocence and then he is eaten how would you feel then? He could be wrongly convicted. The ground already eats people up, we don't need to get involved in that. After a human being is executed, whether or not you like it, they were someone so they should be able to get a proper burial. What does eating them do? Eating someone does not do anything, therefore there is absolutely no point in eating them. They have faced the hardest punishment, what good would punishing them after they have died do? There is a huge difference between eating another humans flesh and eating an animals. Humans are humans, they walk, talk, and are somehow associated with our society. Animals on the other hand, are needed to provide the proper amount of protein. Human flesh has little to none, seeing as there isn't much meat on the bones. Eating regular meat is fine, it prevents things like diabetes and helps muscle growth. As they have proven, eating human flesh is addictive, but most people who go through withdraw from regular meat are going through it because they have a sudden lack of protein. That is the key difference: Human Flesh is totally unneeded l, whereas regular meat eaters go through a lack of protein withdraw. Let me ask you this, would you eat human flesh? Your answer is probably No , right? Chickens are not human beings. They can not think for themselves and probably aren't even aware that they exist. Just think about it, you can play the "why" game all you want, but pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time, but even way back when, cannibalism was still frowned upon. It isn't my fault that people are starving in Congo, how is that even relevant? Eating meat can caused diseases if it is processed, but regular meat is fine. The key is moderation. You are going way off topic and seem to be discussing whether or not we should eat meat rather than should we eat dead prisoners. I never said humans don't know what they should or shouldn't do. I said cannibal's brains have an urge for human flesh, they are insane, not everyone. Like I said earlier, there is a big difference between a wild animal and a executed prisoner. A heard of wild Buffalo will kill you in the wild, so by your logic they are useless to society. This is a moral question, we don't eat humans because they are humans, and in a way wouldn't that like be killing them twice? Humans are humans, wild animals are wild. You're really just starting to repeat what you have said multiple times already, which I have answered. Prisoners are still humans, wild animals are not. Wild animals will try to kill you in an instant, just like a prisoner would. You wouldn't eat a human, but you would eat meat so don't be a hypocrite. We are the most superior species, we aren't living in the jungle anymore and are far more intelligent than other animals. Can most animals cook and clean or think for themselves? No. You do realize that most of the global warming is caused by the warming of the Earth right? No us. Animals make other animals go extinct too, it isn't just us. You are WAY off topic again. Let me ask you this, if a car was speeding down a road and you had to save a dog or a child, who would you save? The child of course. Humans have more of a bond than animals. Eating animals has always been normal, eating humans has never been normal. I never said eating human flesh could make you sick, it is a physiological issue. You are talking about something totally different, there is no need to eat an executed prisoner. If they are in a jail, everyone else most likely has food. Being stranded on a mountain and eating someone is still disgusting, do you think they wanted to eat them? Eating a human regardless of what they have done is sick. You are no better than a killer if you eat their dead body. The Pro has claimed I have offered no valid reasons, but the physiological aspect is very important. You wouldn't want to encourage a mental illness would you? You have not proved anything, you have merely attempted to explain why humans and animals are equal. Humans are more important than animal life because we have evolved more. All animals think that their kind are the most important. Pro has failed to provide any valid reasons and their argument went way off topic. They have discussed why we shouldn't eat animals, nothing to do with whether or not we should eat dead prisoners. From these reasons vote Con. http://breakingmuscle.com... http://www.nutrientrich.com... https://liveto110.com...

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

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.

Justice is a right for victims, and torturers do not have the right to live off of the tax payers.

In today's justice system, is rehabilitation or punishment more important? Personally I think rehabilitation is more important. In prisons, convicts should be educated and although there may be some education systems is some institutions, how good these systems are and whether they are effective in any way is the main question. Giving a convict an education, or at least a portion of an education, so they can jumpstart a career seems reasonable. Punishments that involve doing extensive book reports and novel studies would be better than giving the prisoner opportunities to work out at the gym for for hours on end. There are organizations where criminals in jail can do work to get money, which may seem absurd but what would happen if they didn't have that money? The ex-convict would have to commit crimes and steal again to get money for the basic necessities of life, like food and shelter. With the money earned in jail, they could buy an apartment and get a head start on becoming introduced back into society. The work is also cheaper, let's say, $2.50/ hour for a prisoner instead of $8/ hour for a person not in a prison. I look forward to hearing my opponent's debate and their point of view on this topic.

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

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.

Contention 1: Difference between Violent and Non-violent offendersMy opponent doesn't really clearify what Non-Violent offenders do so let me show you the people who you would be with in the streets. Here is a list of these crimes "28-BURGLARY, STRUCTURE29-BURGLARY, DWELLING32-BURGLARY/TRESPASS, OTHER33-GRAND THEFT, OTHER34-GRAND THEFT, AUTOMOBILE35-STOLEN PROPERTY36-FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING37-WORTHLESS CHECKS38-FRAUDULENT PRACTICES39-OTHER THEFT/PROPERTY DAMAGE40-DRUGS, MANUFACTURE/SALE/PURCHASE41-DRUGS, TRAFFICKING42-DRUGS, POSSESSION/OTHER46-ESCAPE48-DUI, NO INJURY50-TRAFFIC, OTHER51-RACKETEERING 52-POLLUTION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS" (http://prisontalk.com...) I'll get to why this is so important here in a bit.Contention 2: Downsides to Prison My opponent talks about how much it costs to keep prisoners incarcerate each year, but crime costs the US $674 Billion a year. ("Cost of Crime: $674 Billion," U.S. News and World Report, 17 January 1994, pp. 40-41.) If we do not jail the non-violent offenders then that number will increase and the US economy will be greatly harmed. The Medium age for crime has dropped to 13-15 years of age. Meaning that teens are more inclind to break the law. Crimes does not pay, 500,000 burgalries are made each month, 250,000 are reported to the police, 35,000 arrests are made, 24,000 are convicted, and 6,000 are sent to jail. You see here that most of the criminals who rob people don't even go to jail for it. That's a 1% effective rate! (http://www.probe.org...) It's becoming inevitable that these people must be incarrerated in order for any type of effectiveness to work.Contention 3: AlternativesMy opponent has not shown how this would work, but a similiar study was done in Australia and they showed that higher fines do not deter nor reduce the risk of someone reoffending. This study is done for non-violent offenders. ( http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au...) and (http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au...)

i repeat. (this debat thing is screwy and keeps sending me outdated emails that i need to update.) the Bill of Rights, inspired by John Locke, has given all people of the United states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The key aspect here is that everyone has been given the right to life. Everyone deserves to live." the right to life is definitely in dispute. As i adressed in my case, there is a social contract which provides for a reciprical relationship between the citizens and the government. while the governments holds the obligation to provide life, liberty, and the right to property, and the bill of rights even defends this, the constitution does not protect these rights if the person breaks the social contract. in this case the person would commit murder and thus break the social contract. thus, the governemnt, upon convictions, is no longer obligated to adhear to that person's rights. so for this reason they do not have the right to life anymore. Since, after all, why should the government be obligated to a person's rights if they are interfering with the rights of another and so blatantly disregard them? "People have been acquitted after their deaths due to their innocence in the case that they died because of. Innocent people can be considered guilty when they really are not due to problems with DNA testing or other evidence and even because of slanted juries. Neither of these a excusable reason for the death of an innocent human being who was tortured with the prospect of their unnecessary death in the last period of their life." my opponent is likely referring to this list. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... However, the very problem with the use of this argument is that this is an issue with the justice system, not the death penalty. The justice system requires that the jury convict "without a shadow of a doubt" and considering there is already a deterence for juries to agree to the death penalty, it is not as if the justice system weilds capital punishment lightly. I'd also like to bring into question the list itself. If you view the list, few enough people were acquitted due to DNA evidence. furthermore, the proportionality does not make sense. It would be no worse for a person to die by the death penalty before proof of innocence appears than if a person died after life in prison and were acquitted after they died. "A New York Times study showed that over the last 20 years states with the death penalty had a 48% homicide rate compared to 23% in the states without the death penalty. Punishments for crime should also be made for the committer and not the rest of their family. The death penalty is so absolute that it affects the family members of the recipient by traumatizing them when they did nothing wrong but be related to the recipient." The point of hate crimes is not to provide a deterence in society, for who would be deterred if they are crazy enough to kill someone, but rather to provide for proportionality in the criminal law system. To rebut the note about hte families, first of all the family could also be traumatized that a member would commit murder. furthermore, is the victim not dead? is the victim's families and frends not traumatized? did they do anything wrong? no they did not. Furthermore, to use such a case would be appeal to pity in the court systems. the fact is that some crimes deserve death, and if we are to consider the family's feelings of the murderer, the just look at the family of the victim to see more devistation. Also, if to reaffirm my own points, there can be no reciprical relationship between the state and its individual populations when they are the ones who broke the social contract in the first place. Since they broke this social contract they apparently do not have any regard to that social contract.


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

Individuals who have served their time for minor offenses or crimes committed in their youth should retain their voting rights. Crime is any act or failure to act that is considered an offense and can be prosecuted by the state, resulting in legal penalties. Utilitarianism is a principle that advocates for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is conceivable that some may view my stance on denying ex-felons the right to vote as narrow-minded. However, I am here to argue that my perspective is not so. These individuals must face the consequences of their actions. Indeed, they should embody the repercussions of criminal behavior. We can all agree that crime is an abhorrent and immoral act in society. Yet, we must also instill this understanding in our youth. Young offenders should understand that their actions will result in the loss of certain privileges, including their right to vote. From a utilitarian perspective, this will serve the greater good for future generations.

That is a very elitist attitude. You believe that only people who have the means to a better education deserve the right to vote. Those people who sweat and work hard everyday in fields to feed families of people they will never ever meet, those people don't deserve the right to vote. Is this your idea of a perfect world where only the rich elite make the decisions while the working class is basically turned into slaves?

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.

It is hard enough in today's world to live without having one indiscretion you had at the ripe old age of let's say twenty years follow you and hunt you down. After you've committed your CHUMP crime, a Driving While Impaired, Possession of a Controlled Substance (namely marijuana), Drinking Under Age, and an array of other NON-VIOLENT crimes, you grow up. As a part of the "grown up" experience you consider that you need a job...you begin filling out online applications, you walk into the variety of chains around our country and you apply. The interview does come because you're a healthy looking person, you're clean cut, you've finally grown up. The interview goes well and then you hear, "once we get your back ground check back, I'll give you a call." And all of a sudden that stupid mistake of yours just two years ago is coming back to haunt you, you know it before it happens. Let's go a bit further, say you're an middle aged adult man or woman, in this economy of cut backs and shut downs, you find yourself without a job. You've worked at the very same job now for well on twenty years so you know that you'll leave it with some consolation, at the very least unemployment. But you also know that unemployment benefits won't pay the bills so you begin to look for work. That Driving While Impaired charge that you got at twenty-two years of age has not crossed your mind in decades, your car insurance is no longer affected by it, it's over. You interview, it goes well and you just know that you got the job because you're qualified, educated, and grown up. The phone rings, it's the company that you interviewed with and wa-la, no job forthcoming, your criminal background check results were in, the D.W.I. HALTS this process. It is not fair. Anyone that has ever had any criminal trouble, REGARDLESS of what crime it was, the debt to society has been paid IF that individual completed his/her sentence, the majority do. It doesn't matter if it was actual prison time or merely the payment of fines, HIS/HER DEBT HAS BEEN PAID. Granted if the crimes were violent it would certainly lend to a more indepth study of what the person allegely did, but some people really do change and some crimes ARE NOT what they seem. According to Google (my favorite search engine) ONE in FOUR Americans have criminal records (http://nelp.3cdn.net...). Also according to Google, the majority of criminals are one time offenders, and the majority are misdemeanors (http://www.drtomoconnor.com...). It has been determined that a MAJORITY of reformed criminals remain reformed, that this same MAJORITY become productive members of our society. Until that is that dreaded cut back or shut down. IT IS THEN THAT THEY BECOME DEPENDENT ON THE TAX PAYER because companies around the world are turning GOOD PEOPLE with VERY GOOD SKILLS away due to a DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED charge that crept up when the background search was performed. It is downright sad. It has been determined that AT THE VERY LEAST NINETY-THREE PERCENT of the information sold on the black market today regarding PRIVATE individuals has a tonnage of inaccuracies. It has also been determined that sixty-three percent of the information sold about you and I has been sold by the very states that we live in. Have you ever Googled your name? Have you ever entered your name into any people search engine? Try it, you'll be astonished. I have a very unique name, there are twenty-three individuals of the same name nationwide. I do NOT support criminal records as adequate records on any individual, because I know that people can change. I know what it was like to be young, and I know the mistakes that I made. I know too that criminal records are a matter of public record, but really, if I share the same name with twenty-three people on this planet, isn't it likely that I may inherit some of their misgivings...it happened, I can prove it. I think that it is time that WE THE PEOPLE give the systems that are currently in place regarding the often private information about individuals a good revamping. A majority of these systems are antiquated and should be put to rest. We should hold our government accountable for the ACCURATE distribution of information that is PUBLIC RECORD, MAKING THEM CROSS THEIR T's AND DOT THEIR I's. Any pros you may offer will be refuted.

There's quite a lot of flaws with your argument. But for my opening one I will introduce how many people are on benefits. Up to 64% of families receive welfare benefits from the state http://www.theguardian.com... and for 30.3% of them welfare takes up half their income. This is a massive amount of the population around half of the population telling them they can't vote because of what the government is quite contradictory ruling them out goes against the very definition of democracy. Also then anyone who has any child can't vote because they're given welfare benefits to help them with the child this rules out a major portion of the country that makes our next generation comparing them to criminals and serial killers goes against the human rights convention. The second part of my argument will be that at every general election each party tries to appeal to the population. Conservatives who're the more right wing party try to appeal to the older generation and Labour party the young. Meaning that every party tries to convince some groups to vote for them. If the Conservatives try to appeal less to welfare benefits recipients and more to right wing voters then that will be part of their campaign as they will advertise for that meaning more right wing voters will vote for them but vice versa and less welfare benefits voters will vote for Conservatives. Yet Conservatives can still appeal to welfare recipients it entirely depends. So it doesn't make any logical reasoning to exclude a group because it doesn't appeal to one party. The majority of right wing voters will vote for conservatives but that doesn't mean we should ban them from voting. Its also like saying if one party advertises to raise minimum wage we should ban all of the working class from voting because more of them will vote for that party. Overall as each party tries to appeal to each group the majority of that group will vote for that party like for the welfare recipients that's what's politics is all about.

| 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.

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...

Being sentenced indefinitely to treatment centers still does not justify as punishment. Yes they are protected and locked up in these centers but does not justify they are being punished. They should be punished for their immoral wrong doings and serve their punishments in prisons with the availability for treatment. I completely agree with your last statement regarding allocating our resources on making sure potential victims are ultimately safe while treating the victims that unfortunately have been victimized already.

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.

1. Indeed rehabilitation is a critical aspect of incarceration but for those that would not have to live out the rest of their lives in prison. To rehabilitate those that are never going to have their freedom again is a vast waste of our taxpayer's money. The cost of American incarceration varies from year to year but it stays in the range of 40 to 70 billion every year. That comes out to about 30,000 per inmate and yet we only spend just less than 11,000 on our public school students. Part of the billions spent is on keeping inmates incarcerated for life when that money could be used to better our educational system. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.governing.com... 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. Whether these people can be rehabilitated is irrelevant after they have committed such atrocious crimes because they have taken the life of others intentionally and maliciously. They can never be trusted to have their freedoms again as they will always pose a threat to society. Now for example someone sentenced to 15 years in prison for assault and battery not resulting in death will not be eligible for the death penalty as they are within the possibility of rehabilitation and can likely turn their behavior around. Inmates that have a mental illness do indeed need rehabilitation but within reason. For example, John Holmes intentionally murdered innocent strangers in a movie theater and it was determined that he was indeed suffering from a mental illness but that was also determined that was no excuse for what he did. When someone commits an act like he did rehabilitation should not be an option. 2. The innocent will have no chance at redemption. This is the only downside in utilizing the death penalty on the scale I propose but as my opponent has stated the advance in technology is accelerating so there will be far fewer people being wrongly sentenced. The percentage of wrongful convictions will continue to drop. "innocent until proven guilty" is very debatable seeing as how people are arrested before they are convicted. "Guilty until proven innocent" is a far more accurate description of how our justice system works but the amendments my opponent has stated have nothing to do with a person convicted of a crime facing life in prison. 3. Cruel and unusual punishment I will not argue that current methods of execution are not ideal nor the most humane but let us not forget that this is about punishing those that have committed the most heinous crimes in our society. We at least make the attempt to euthanize them in the most humane way we can. Our military takes action that can sometimes result in collateral loss of life and yet it is still deemed legal because the ends justify the means. Collateral loss of life means that innocent people were lost in advertently but the method's continue to be used because it is the best we can do while still accomplish our objectives. Our objective in society is to ensure that people who would commit the worst crimes can not threaten people again. 4. Unfair, unjust system "determining a person's likelihood to receive the death penalty" Remember that my plan would be an expansion of the death penalty to those that would also be sentenced to life in prison. [4] This is a problem that should be addressed and there should be more severe consequences for attorneys appointed by the courts who have had these disciplinary problems but we cannot let the attorneys actions dictate the life of a prisoner convicted to life or death. We should take every measure possible to ensure that attorneys always behave in the most professional manor possible but the fact of the matter is the attorney's misconduct is not the biggest problem facing our legal system or the American taxpayers. [5] Arriving drunk would result in the attorney being held in contempt of court. Sleeping or sabotage does not seem to feasible because an attorney's reputation (number of cases they've won and lost) is crucial to them because a high rate of winning cases helps them attain more clients. [6] Judging by the demeanor of the judges statement it would seem that she is against the death penalty in the first place and that is her opinion but she does have a valid point. Those that can afford prestigious attorneys (such as O.J. did) can literally get away with murder. It is a critical flaw in the legal system and has become quite infamous. Time and time again people have been proven guilty but for one minor technical detail the suspect get's off scott free thus allowing them to commit more crimes such as a rapist. Those with enough money can become nearly untouchable in regards of the law. 5. Justice vs vengeance. The death penalty used today is not a form of vengeance it is determining that the prisoner has committed crimes too heinous to society. My opponent has provided no justification to allow these criminals to continue living at our expense. These people have decided to give up their freedoms when they committed their crimes. No one forces a rapist to do the things they do. No one can justify why we should have to spend billions of dollars a year of our taxes to keep these prisoners alive. The majority of prisoners put to death were convicted of murder, they took the life of another person. It is incredibly simple, if a criminal doesn't want to loose their life they shouldn't commit the crime. Often times the people that are opposed to death penalty seem to forget that these people are not being forced to commit these crimes. The possible consequences of these crimes are not secrets. 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. 6. Court clog and cost As I stated earlier the average cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated every year is $30,000 and if you multiply that times 50,000 you get $1,500,000,000. That's just for 2012 and that vastly shadows 4 billion since 1978. That calculation was not even the entire number of people serving life sentences it was only those without the possibility of parole. 4,770,000,000 is what you get when you multiply 30,000 ( cost for one inmate every year ) and 159,000 (number of inmates serving life). That is more than the total cost of the death penalty for California for the last 36 years. "One of every nine individuals in prison is serving a life sentence. "More than 159,000 people were serving life sentences in 2012, and 50,000 of those are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. "Florida, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, California, and Michigan account for 57.7% of all life without parole sentences nationwide. "Of those sentenced to life in prison, 64.3% were convicted of homicide Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com... My opponent speaks of the mental trauma caused by lengthy court proceedings but surely it would be more traumatic for the person who murdered a family member to get off scot free and for some people simply knowing that the person that killed their loved ones is going to live a full life is enough to cause them mental distress.

Contention 1: Difference between Violent and Non-violent offendersMy opponent doesn't really clearify what Non-Violent offenders do so let me show you the people who you would be with in the streets. Here is a list of these crimes "28-BURGLARY, STRUCTURE29-BURGLARY, DWELLING32-BURGLARY/TRESPASS, OTHER33-GRAND THEFT, OTHER34-GRAND THEFT, AUTOMOBILE35-STOLEN PROPERTY36-FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING37-WORTHLESS CHECKS38-FRAUDULENT PRACTICES39-OTHER THEFT/PROPERTY DAMAGE40-DRUGS, MANUFACTURE/SALE/PURCHASE41-DRUGS, TRAFFICKING42-DRUGS, POSSESSION/OTHER46-ESCAPE48-DUI, NO INJURY50-TRAFFIC, OTHER51-RACKETEERING 52-POLLUTION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS" (http://prisontalk.com...) I'll get to why this is so important here in a bit.Contention 2: Downsides to Prison My opponent talks about how much it costs to keep prisoners incarcerate each year, but crime costs the US $674 Billion a year. ("Cost of Crime: $674 Billion," U.S. News and World Report, 17 January 1994, pp. 40-41.) If we do not jail the non-violent offenders then that number will increase and the US economy will be greatly harmed. The Medium age for crime has dropped to 13-15 years of age. Meaning that teens are more inclind to break the law. Crimes does not pay, 500,000 burgalries are made each month, 250,000 are reported to the police, 35,000 arrests are made, 24,000 are convicted, and 6,000 are sent to jail. You see here that most of the criminals who rob people don't even go to jail for it. That's a 1% effective rate! (http://www.probe.org...) It's becoming inevitable that these people must be incarrerated in order for any type of effectiveness to work.Contention 3: AlternativesMy opponent has not shown how this would work, but a similiar study was done in Australia and they showed that higher fines do not deter nor reduce the risk of someone reoffending. This study is done for non-violent offenders. ( http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au...) and (http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au...)