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

Previously convicted felons should have the right to vote. I believe that ex-felons should be allowed to vote because increasing voter participation is essential. Why should past actions, long since resolved, continue to hinder their civic engagement today? I acknowledge that ex-felons have committed serious offenses, but they remain citizens of this country, and all citizens should have the right to vote for their government. After all, they too are part of the community and have a stake in its future.

How a state government works is this, we as citizens gives up some power so that the state protects our unalienable rights and in return we live by those laws that the state has set forth. When someone who just broke one of the biggest laws set forth, which is we do not kill each other, he/she relinquished their rights. How is life in prison a suitable punishment for a person who kills a person or even kills more than one? How is that justice being served? Did those victims not have lives? dreams? rights? Were those rights not just violated by an individual who broke the laws of the government? When someone is murdered, the state has failed to protect that person from his unalienable rights being taken away. The best solution is to serve justice, kill the menace to society, not cloth them, feed them, give them books to read, give them water, or even a shelter until they die in their cells. Example Jeffrey Dahmer, killed 17 boys, he tortured them, raped them, and ate their bodies. 17 boys died and the suitable punishment was to be stuck in jail for the rest of his life? He took their dreams, their future, their innocence, and disposed of the bodies so that not even the families could give a proper burial, and the most reasonable conviction was to send this man to jail for life? Why does he deserve to live? Where does it say he is allowed to take the rights of 17 boys? For people who commit these crimes, prison is a blessing, with all these charges how are these people supposed to live in the outside world? No person in their right mind would hire a murderer. Our international relations should stay intact, we are a more powerful country we should not force ourselves to change every little thing so that all the countries will accept us more. It is impossible to please the entire world, our allies will just find other reasons to look at us in a bad light, we cannot change everything just to fit their likings. The death penalty is a fitting end to a person who did not care about the consequences of his/her actions,they gave up their rights when they decided to break the state laws and take another persons rights away. I do not see the logical reasoning with one person killing 17people and getting to live his life, that seems like a flaw in the justice system if we allow that to happen. The death penalty should not be phased out. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Greetings, In this particular debate, I will be arguing that, because voting is a flawed method for establishing federal laws in the Untied States, the act of voting should not be used in the United States House or Senate. Definitions: Voting – casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution. Flawed – having an imperfection of defect. Federal – of or relating to the central government. Federal laws are created in the United States House and Senate. I am arguing that merely voting on a particular measure is a flawed method to create a law. Merely voting means that the majority wins. My main case in this debate will be the following: "What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular." This quotation depicts that there is a "right" (and therefore a wrong, as well) that is present. Similarly, there is also a "popular" (and therefore an unpopular, as well). The process of voting fails to take into account what is "right" or "wrong," but merely what is "popular" and "unpopular." This, in my view, is wrong; and what is wrong should, ideally, not be implemented into federal level. Because voting is largely subjective, necessitating its voters to determine what may be preferable to them, instead of what is indeed right, the process of voting if inherently flawed. So how do we determine what is right? Well, logically, what is right can be deduced via debate by those involved in the particular measure that would otherwise be subjected to a vote. I can get into this in subsequent rounds, but I would also ask that my opponent read a previous debate I have had, regarding a universal truth, as parts of it may be relevant in explaining and deciphering what is correct. http://www.debate.org... As well, my opponent in this debate should be in favor of the process of voting to establish federal laws in the United States. Again, in this debate, I am arguing that voting is a flawed mechanism for establishing federal laws in the United States. Because it is flawed, it therefore should not be used. I look forward to the debate.

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.

You are asking me to debate whether or not we should allow criminals to stay in office. The debate topic was This house would grant politicians immunity from prosecution. This was not about keeping politicians in office that are criminals it was whether or not the house would pass it.

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.

Hello. This debate will center around if the Right to Vote Should be extended towards those citizens who are currently receiving financial assistance from the public, also called as welfare. I will be taking the position that they should not be allowed to vote. This debate shall not be about the legitimacy of the welfare system (i.e. whether or not welfare works) or proposing improvements upon the current welfare system. This is simply discussing whether or not those citizens who are dependent upon the welfare system should be allowed to vote. This debate will consist of five rounds: 1) Opening statements. (Introduce your position) 2) First arguments. (Provide either reasoned arguments or sourced evidenced for your position) 3) Rebuttals. (Refute the opposing arguments). 4) Revised Arguments (Elaborate upon your original argument, refute the rebuttals, and/or propose solutions to problems posed by rebuttals in opposition's argument) 5) Closing Statements (Reintroduce your position and provide any elaborations upon it) Opening Statemet: Many modern States are Republics, meaning that after a predetermined number of years, the citizens of this State gather to cast their votes in order to elect the most fit candidate to assume office. Many modern States have also developed welfare systems designed to provide financial aide to those citizens who are, for whatever reasons, not providing for themselves. In order to prevent the exchange of votes for a greater income from welfare, which amounts essentially to the purchasing of votes, those citizens who are dependent upon aide from public coffers should be denied the Right to Vote for as long as they are dependent.

Hello. Thanks for taking the opposing side. It doesn't really matter whether we are discussing American welfare or British welfare, just simply the issue of whether or not those individuals on welfare should be allowed to vote. The primary worry is that their votes are essentially purchased. Either to those politicians who promise an increase to the amount of welfare, or against those politicians who campaign on trying to eliminate the welfare system. It should be noted that as that they do receive welfare, even if they pay a tax upon their personal income earned from some employment, the tax money is reimbursed to them in the money coming from the welfare check. So, the primary issue with welfare recipients being allowed to vote in elections is, in the words of one of the greater Englishmen of the 19th Century, John Stuart Mill, "Those who pay no taxes, disposing by their votes of other people's money, have every motive to be lavish, and none to economize. As far as money maters are concerned, any power of voting possessed by them is a violation of the fundamental principle of free government; a severance of the power of control, from the interest in its beneficial exercise. It amounts to allowing them to put their hands into other people's pockets, for any purpose which they think fit to call a public one; which in some of the great towns of the United States is known to have produced a scale of local taxation onerous beyond example, and wholly borne by the wealthier classes. " (This quote can be found in Considerations on Representative Government, Chapter 8, The Extension of Suffrage). People tend to vote for that which is most beneficial towards themselves. Look how many people straddled with student loan debt rallied around former contender for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States, Bernie Sanders. On the other side of the spectrum, those people who's jobs were lost when their employers moved production facilities overseas, their rallied behind now Republican nominee, Donald Trump. I am not calling any of these people selfish or lazy or xenophobic or any other such nonsense spewed by American media (I would have no idea how them media is for you all across the pond), but I merely point this out on how people vote based upon their particular circumstances. Essentially, their votes were purchased. Those people who do pay taxes have proven that they have produced for society, paid into society, and hence have invested in society, and likewise the running of their government. Those individuals who receive public financial support from the public coffers, when that support is either the entirety of their income or greater than the taxes that they otherwise pay (which is most reasonable. It would make little sense for society to offer financial support to some one only to then demand that money and more back), and this public support is not due to past services rendered, these individuals have not invested into society. In fact, they make an income off the good nature of a productive and wealthy society. This income, being freely given and since the recipient of the welfare is by no means expected to repay the amount given to him, is taken from the public coffers. If recipients of welfare vote to elect officials and legislators, much like the Sanders supporters and those that got Trump nominated, will vote for that candidate or bill which most benefits themselves. However, unlike the Sanders supporters, many of whom still produce for society and may very well be the victims of usury by the banks which loaned to them, or the Trump supporters, who produced for society until they were turned out by their employers and abandoned by elected officials in Washington (and I believe, but not entirely sure, that similar problems have befallen your countrymen in the UK), recipients of welfare do not produce for society nor are they victims of the malevolence of those more powerful members of society. In fact, they are the beneficiaries of the good-will of more powerful members of society. To allow them to vote is to allow them the ability to abuse that good-will to increase their income. Essentially, their votes will only go towards those politicians who, whether for truly altruistic reasons or ulterior motives, promise to increase the amount in the welfare check. In turn, this will not only burden the very wealthy, but this will also become a burden upon all individuals who pay an income tax and are not receiving welfare from the state. The income of all working men will decrease which could very well drive more people to enroll in various welfare programs, thus increasing the amount the state must spend on such programs which will lead again to further increases in taxation upon all who pay an income tax. In the United States, the Democrat Party is the one which is most associated with welfare, while the Republicans are usually against it. The following link has a breakdown of how recipients of various public assistance programs tend to vote. . http://rare.us...

"...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."The problem with the premise here -- that government's problems must be solved by the masses -- fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our government. Our government is an extension of the people. Any messes caused by government are messes incurred and tolerated by an electorate that keeps putting the same people in power. We have had government of the masses for a while now, and we can see it is not as effective of a system as it could be."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."My opponent went on to list ways in which the vote is being suppressed. The examples are immaterial. In my opinion, some of his railing against voter ID laws and felony disenfranchisement is off-base in this particular debate. The kind of voting restrictions my opponent talks about is restriction for purely political reasons. All the restrictions target minorities, a group of people that generally aid the Democratic Party. Therefore, Republicans oppose liberalizing voting laws, and Democrats support doing so.But what I'm talking about is voting restriction for reasons other than petty party politics. I'm suggesting voting restriction to those who are most qualified to vote. The difference here can be summed up in the following metaphor:On one hand, a business owner refuses to hire someone because of their race ( i.e. poll taxes).On the other, a business owner refuses to hire someone because they're not qualified for the job (i.e. my idea)."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."I agree that all of the amendments listed go along with the theme of expanding and protecting voting rights, but this theme does not legally or constitutionally bar us from implementing my plan. Sure, it would be a step in the opposite direction we've been heading, but it wouldn't violate anything in the Constitution. And to not implement the plan simply due to the fact that it would be a reversal of historical trends is silly; doing so would completely ignore the merits of my idea and the drawbacks to the current way of doing things."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?"This sounds nice, but it lacks backing. Why would our country's decline soon follow if the majority of voters ceded their right to do so? I've outlined why we would be better off with more qualified voters, and I don't see how unqualified voters not voting is a problem, especially if the majority of them approved of such circumstances during the process in which this idea would be engraved into the Constitution.

Definitions: Sexual offender registries: the lists of sexual offenders that are available online. These lists include people with a wide diversity of offenses: from streaking to rape. These lists are FOR LIFE. The local police stations furnish the information for these registries. Discontinued: Abolished, removed, stopped. Police stations will providing these lists of offenders. Advocates of these lists argue that such lists help safeguard local societies from the offenders. I will argue that the harms of these lists far outweigh any benefits. My arguments: 1) Dehumanization and self-fulfilling prophesy These lists dehumanize the offenders. People who read the list, fearful and ignorant, ostracize the offenders, mock them, drive them away. Society shuns the offenders and hurts them emotionally. Their offense becomes a scar FOR LIFE. Employers fire them, however excellently they perform. Apart from the emotional, psychological and professional suffering that offenders undergo, they also succumb to a self-fulfilling prophesy, as they fail to reintegrate into society. They are more likely to repeat their sexual offenses, because everyone expects them to. More children are molested, more women raped. 2) Unfair punishment: For no other crime in the USA does there exist a similar registry of offenders. Thieves lack an online registry; so do murderers! Our justice system becomes unfair when we infringe on the civil rights of offenders when there is no parallel procedure in other crimes. Law should be consistent. 3) Promotes vigilantism: Often individuals take it upon themselves to eradicate these offenders. There are numerous cases where sexual offenders, even years after their crime, get murdered by their neighbors because they saw the offender's name in an online registry. Apart from refuting the above arguments, I will place one additional burden on Con: (a) Provide evidence that such registries WORK and are NEEDED. That they decrease recidivism, or succeed in protecting the community. Only 5% of sexual offenders repeat their crime within the next 3 years. Do registries achieve anything here? Some evidence links on my side: [1] http://bangornews.com... [2] http://articles.latimes.com... [3]http://cfcoklahoma.org...

1- "relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do." It's perfectly rational, it's the major objective factor in how much harm they have suffered. No, their previous money income does not whatsoever determine how much harm they have suffered; that is the money income they received before they were sent to jail, how does that even come close to become the amount they have suffered? The time they have spent wrongly convicted determines how much they have suffered, that is why depending on previous income is NOT a rational thing to do. That is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is a stable and reliable option to go with; because we don't know what the wrongly convicted could of accomplished while they were in jail, relying on $50,000 per year of incarcenation is the best option to go with. 2- ". In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job." Whereas many of them DEFINITELY had a higher paying job than 50,000 a year. Uniqueness criterion. And BECAUSE the government is trying to be fair, we must rely on a stable number; not numbers based on their past. We are not compensating them the money they could of made during the time they were wrongly convicted because that could be any number. We are are compensating them in order for them to be able to get back on their feet and $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair enough. 3- "Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. " They have not suffered equal damages, hence it wouldn't be fair. Should people whose Ferrari was blown up by someone receive the same compensation as someone whose old junker was? I understand they all didn't suffer equal damages but that is why $50,000 per year of incarcenation is fair to them because we are basing it on the time they were wrongly convicted; we cannot "measure" the "damages" that they went through so the only way we can be fair is by paying them according to the amount of time they were wrongly convicted. That is the only way justice can be achieved. By comparing a Ferrari to an old junker are you trying to simulate that some people that were wrongly convicted are "better" than each other? If you are that is a pretty sad thing to do. An addition to that, basing their compensation on their previous money is unjust, it just creates further problems in the equal rights section of issues. 4- :Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000. There is nothing "Reliable" about that number-- it has no relation to damages or anything else but the fact that you ASSERT it's fair. That number IS reliable, that money is to pay off for the government's mistake in sending them to jail but more importantly to try to help them build their future again. How is that number NOT fair? That money can help them in MANY new ways, the way they choose to use it depends on their intentions on the money in itself; but the government would be doing its job to hold justice and compensate them for the government's mistake. 5- : To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again It is to compensate them for damages. And could it not also be used to help them rebuild their lifes? 6- :To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".You have not demonstrated it is fair, and previous income and rate of increase is entirely just. Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions. Yes I have demonstrated how it is fair, you should pay more attention and read carefully. I have clearly said many times that is fair because you are basing it on the amount of TIME they spent wrongly convicted. How is that NOT fair? You say "Justice consists of people paying for the consequences of their actions-- the government should pay for demonstrable consequences of their actions." First of all, you give NO source but I will attack that statement even if you give no proof that is the definition of Justice. Anyway, would the government not be doing that if they accordingly give the wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of incarcenation? They are paying that amount for the amount of time they were wrongly in jail, so how is that not paying for the consequences of their actions? If the actions of the government were to send them to jail. Conclusion: My opponent doesn't agree with $50,000 per year of incarcenation because he wants to base the money the wrongly convicted get on previous income before getting put in jail but is that what we should really base the money we give them on? Should we really base it on their past? $50,000 per year of incarcenation provides many things for the wrongly convicted and it is FAIR because they would all get a certain amount depending on the amount they spent wrongly convicted, not based on their past. Basing on their past is the unjust idea, basing on their past is what we DON't need; basing on their past would ONLY create more problems and as you have noticed that is the LEAST thing we need.


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

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons who have completed their sentence should retain the right to vote.

Legislatures in 16 states have relaxed voting restrictions on felons over the past decade, according to a recent report. This trend is celebrated by some rights advocates as a move towards democratic principles and fairness, particularly for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be imposed on felons? Due to their high incarceration rate, blacks are disproportionately affected by the varying voting bans among states, with many states barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have served their sentences, and some states imposing lifetime bans. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska, and New Mexico have lifted their lifetime bans on voting by people convicted of felonies, and several other states have made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to over 600,000 individuals, the report states. However, because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote due to criminal records. "It's encouraging that many people who had been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens," said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. "I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies," Travis said. "This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities." However, some conservatives remain opposed to any broad loosening of voting restrictions. "If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't claim the right to make the law for someone else," said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Clegg, who served as a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, believes that those convicted of felonies should be granted the vote only on a case-by-case basis, when they have proven to be constructive members of society. Some voting restrictions date back to the early years of the country or the post-Civil War period, while others were tightened during the "get tough on crime" era of the 1980s. By federal law, voter rules are primarily determined by the states, resulting

"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.

I do not agree what so ever . prison is a different type of punishment yes people should have a punishment for there wrong doings but there are better ways to approach it rather than killing when we use lethal injection we are sinning the same as the person committing the crime I am not saying they should be let go with no punishment they should have to pay for what they have done but as I have said before two wrongs DON'T make a Wright.

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

Dear Proby, I am not going to debate this topic with you in a traditional voting style format. You simply asked me why I don't believe in the death penalty, so I will answer your question. I am not going to try to convince the viewers or you what is right, so theres no need in voting. Death as a punishment is very severe, and I am a Christian, so I do not believe in killing people, and I do believe in forgiveness. The best solution is to lock them up and let God deal with them once they die.

"...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."The problem with the premise here -- that government's problems must be solved by the masses -- fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our government. Our government is an extension of the people. Any messes caused by government are messes incurred and tolerated by an electorate that keeps putting the same people in power. We have had government of the masses for a while now, and we can see it is not as effective of a system as it could be."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."My opponent went on to list ways in which the vote is being suppressed. The examples are immaterial. In my opinion, some of his railing against voter ID laws and felony disenfranchisement is off-base in this particular debate. The kind of voting restrictions my opponent talks about is restriction for purely political reasons. All the restrictions target minorities, a group of people that generally aid the Democratic Party. Therefore, Republicans oppose liberalizing voting laws, and Democrats support doing so.But what I'm talking about is voting restriction for reasons other than petty party politics. I'm suggesting voting restriction to those who are most qualified to vote. The difference here can be summed up in the following metaphor:On one hand, a business owner refuses to hire someone because of their race ( i.e. poll taxes).On the other, a business owner refuses to hire someone because they're not qualified for the job (i.e. my idea)."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."I agree that all of the amendments listed go along with the theme of expanding and protecting voting rights, but this theme does not legally or constitutionally bar us from implementing my plan. Sure, it would be a step in the opposite direction we've been heading, but it wouldn't violate anything in the Constitution. And to not implement the plan simply due to the fact that it would be a reversal of historical trends is silly; doing so would completely ignore the merits of my idea and the drawbacks to the current way of doing things."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?"This sounds nice, but it lacks backing. Why would our country's decline soon follow if the majority of voters ceded their right to do so? I've outlined why we would be better off with more qualified voters, and I don't see how unqualified voters not voting is a problem, especially if the majority of them approved of such circumstances during the process in which this idea would be engraved into the Constitution.

This has so far been a great experience, and I thank you. Now, I would like to clarify some things: 1. Most recent recidivism rate available. The 2004 recidivism statistic is the most recent number available on federal recidivism. 2. Safety valve offenders must have hit the mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). You have MMS that "catch" so to speak, certain offenders that have committed crimes and mandates a minimum sentence for them. Safety valve offenders are those who met certain criteria and hence received less prison time, as a feeble excuse for a second chance. 3. All offenders who go through the safety valve are drug traffickers. The safety valve offenders are those low-level, non-violent, first time offenders who have the potential for great societal harm if put through prison, and great societal benefit if put through a reasonable program, like the one this plan would implement. As for your 'new stats', what are they referring to? We must see them posted for them to count. If your stats are referring to the number of prisoners in the federal system, my statistics on that were from June or July of 2012 and hence my numbers are still more reliable. As to your point about another valid option, I would thank you for conceding this point, and I make special note of this to anyone who is voting. In response though, I will simply reiterate my previous response, that A. alternative sentencing is better than this option, I showed this with sources, my opponent has provided none; and B. even if this plan was not the BEST plan, it is a good idea because it is BETTER than the CON position. PRO says that this plan has net benefits, this has been proved. PRO says this plan is better than the status quo, this has been proven. CON says, there must be better options out there, so don't vote PRO. I ask you to do exactly that, vote PRO because this plan is better than the status quo. As to my source not working, yes, I agree. It does not seem to be working. I apologize. Here is a second piece to corroborate this point. I would also like to point out how the CON has tried to point out deficiencies in my support whilst he provides none. Preponderance of the evidence Supports Rehab Roger Przybylsk/ RKC group/ RKC Group provides applied research, training and technical assistance services to public, private and nonprofit organizations with a focus on public policy and justice system issues. / This project was supported by Grant 2004-DB-BX-0033 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance through DCJ's Office of Adult and Juvenile Assistance. / "What Works"/ February, 2008 . http://dcj.state.co.us... Lipsey and Cullen (2007) concluded that "the preponderance of research evidence, therefore, supports the general conclusion that rehabilitation treatment is capable of reducing the reoffense rates of convicted offenders and that it has greater capability for doing so than correctional sanctions. " I would also like to note that because very few if any of the offenders we are addressing will be in need of drug rehab, this point is inconsequential. The real 'meat' of the program is the vocational training for these drug traffickers which has been shown to be extremely effective. As to your logical reasoning behind this point it is flawed because it assumes that drug traffickers are locked up for the rest of their lives. To the contrary, the specific offenders we are dealing with in the safety valve would never get a life sentence. To this end, they will get out, and harm society even more. I have several responses to my opponents arguments about how vocational training will not succeed. 1. Biased sources. His sources were from the bureau of prisons, clearly a biased source on the success of prisons. 2. No statistics. His sources simply said that prison provides drug treatment and vocational training, not that it actually succeeded. If we look at my source, which has not been addressed, it says that prison, which apparently includes these programs, increases recidivism 7%. 3. Alternative sentencing better. Until CON can show that sticking with prison will provide a success rate higher than that of alternative sentencing, I ask you to vote PRO. CON then proceeds to argue that my source wants to redo the safety valve, not replace it, this is irrelevant. We have both agreed that the source is telling the truth and upon the number of people going through the safety valve. Hence, this plan's cost savings have already been assured. $1 billion in savings is the result of this plan. Very cost efficient considering it improves effectiveness in reducing recidivism as well. CON seemed confused at the next point, saying that making the offenders pay for the program is somehow a bad thing, or would cause it to fail on the federal level. Aside from offering to source for this purely speculative conclusion this makes no sense. In fact, their having to pay for 9/10 of the program is part of the reason it succeeds. Next, my opponent mentions a $23 million dollar cost to this plan, 2 responses: 1. Cost part of the plan. I said that implementation would cost 7 times less than prison and got this number. (math available upon request. Although, you might want to do it in the comments for quicker reply and use in creating arguments) 2. Irrelevant. Even if this 'unforeseen cost' was 4 times what the CON said it would be the savings so outweigh the cost that you should still vote PRO ($1 billion savings. $23 million 'unforeseen cost'. ) Con then proceeds to say that the drug dealers won't be able to afford this. My response is: Historical precedence. This system worked in Dallas, and so far CON has provided no reasoning or counter-support as to why it wouldn't work with these federal offenders. I would remind you that these offenders make sometimes as much as $2500 dollars a year, no typo. Minimum wage would be more than enough for them. Well, we have already addressed the idea of proposing a second course of action, so i will stick to CON's basic argument that federal offenders won't be able to find work and therefore they will go back to crime. 2 responses: 1. Historical precedence. Dallas got it right, no CON response. 2. Any succes is better than prison. Alternative sentencing has been PROVEN to work much much better than prison, however, even if only a few people were helped by this plan, it would still be better to vote PRO because the end result is reduced costs, and reduced recidivism; vs. prison where you get increased cost and increased recidivism. More support: Research Triangle Institute/ February 2006 rti. org/page. cfm? objectid=45f0612f-80cf-452e-b9466cad5f1b786c Alternative programs that divert felony drug offenders to substance abuse treatment programs rather than prison terms could save the U. S. criminal justice system millions of dollars and reduce recidivism, according to a study conducted by researchers at RTI International. The study, funded by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a subcontract with the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, was published in the latest issue of Justice Research and Policy (Issue 7, Vol. 1). "The study shows that drug treatment programs for felony offenders provide great economic benefits to the criminal justice system and reduce recidivism rates among offenders, providing societal and economic benefits," said Gary Zarkin, Ph. D. , principal investigator for the study. "Based on the results, policymakers should consider diversion programs for higher-risk drug offenders in addition to low-risk offenders usually eligible for such programs. " Because PRO has proven that there is a harm, that this plan would fix the harm and achieve the goal of cost effectiveness through reduced cost and recidivism, that I ask you vote PRO at the end of today's debate round. Thank you.

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

I fell yes right to vote should be given regardless of the qualification as voting is used to decide the person who will be representing the people . since we both are from India you know that many in India lack basic education ..... but they do have problems ......not allowing them to vote for their own representative is not justified.

We should not be in the position to choose who lives and dies. this is what you wrote. we are not in the position of who lives and who dies. we do this because there is crazy people in this world who don't belong. I don't mean special needs I mean people who the feeling of killing people. im probably going to lose I can tell

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.


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

In the context of the American democratic process, felons who have served their time should not automatically regain their voting rights. In a democratic republic, citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. These representatives, in turn, shape the nation's policies and laws. Allowing individuals who have violated the social contract to participate in this process could undermine the very foundations of our legal system.

When someone commits a crime, the impact is not confined to the victim; it reverberates throughout society. The criminal becomes a burden on the community, which must now bear the costs of incarceration and rehabilitation. If felons have demonstrated poor judgment by breaking the law, why should they be trusted to make informed decisions about the leadership of the country?

The question of voting rights is not unique to felons. Children and mentally incompetent individuals are also barred from voting, based on the assumption that they lack the maturity or capacity to make sound political choices. Similarly, why should felons, who have shown a disregard for societal norms, be granted the privilege of influencing the direction of the nation?

Furthermore, the prison environment can be fraught with influences that could compromise the integrity of the voting process. Prison gangs, for instance, might manipulate inmates to vote for their preferred candidates in exchange for favors or protection. This raises concerns about the potential for vote tampering and undermines the fairness of elections.

Some argue that denying felons the right to vote is a violation of their constitutional rights. However, this perspective overlooks the reality that certain freedoms are forfeited when one breaks the law. In fact, students, who are often considered to be in a state of learning and development, are not guaranteed all their rights. Why, then, should convicted felons, who have committed heinous crimes such as murder, theft, and rape, be afforded more rights than students?

The recidivism rate among released prisoners is alarmingly high, with 52% returning to prison. This statistic suggests that the current penal system is more focused on punishment than rehabilitation. If felons truly wish to regain their right to vote, they should strive to live within the bounds of the law.

It's crucial to remember that prison is not a reflection of the freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens. Prisoners are separated from the community precisely because they have breached the social contract. Arguments that suggest granting voting rights to felons would help them feel more connected to society and less likely to reoffend lack empirical support. Without concrete evidence, such claims remain speculative at best.

For a comprehensive understanding of

Im sure you all know how rarely it is that I do a serious rather than a troll debate. But now, I have decided to do a good one. As you see, the topic is whether or not voting should be compulsory. I will be Pro and you will be Con. So here are the rules and the round structure. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. No Kritik 3. No Semantics 4. No plagiarism (obviously, surprising I need to say this) 5. Forfeiture means loss Round Structure: Round 1: Pro gives guidelines, rules. Con says "I accept" Round 2: Pro gives arguments/Con gives arguments Round 3: Refutations by both sides Round 4: Counter Refutation Round 5: Summary and Final Words In order to accept topic, you must comment in comments section and I will choose my opponent form that pool <3

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

No problem. First of all I'll say while I do agree with the death penalty I think it should be very hard to be sentenced to. So imagine this. It is a summer night and your sleeping in bed with your wife and daughters downstairs. Someone breaks in and before you can do anything about it he has brutally slaughtered your wife and daughters. How could this man possibly just go to prison. He took innocent lives so why shouldn't a fair punishment for him be the death penalty. An eye for eye, right? I do realize many arguments against the death penalty are that what if an innocent was sentenced with a death penalty. While this is possible it is very rare. An innocent man has a better chance of being killed by a falling meteor. The death penalty offers more reward than risk. Also another thought is when someone doesn't get the death penalty there is a decent chance he will be out on the streets before he dies. Very few people serve a full life penalty. Would you really want to take a chance of this man being back on the streets someday?

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.

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

Pro has not responded to any of my arguments. This is a debate, and debates entail an exchange, not talking past each other and ignoring the other side.Now, on to the mesh of one sentence arguments...the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. 1) This is irrelevant. If jails should be harder, it only follows that the jails should change, not that the death penalty should be allowed. 2) Why are jails not hard enough? Please provide support. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right1) I developed a lengthy argument last round which addressed the moral responsibility of individuals and the unjust nature of the death penalty. I invite Pro to read it.2) Pro only appeals to emotion. She doesn't make an argument. you need to learn from your mistakesUnfortunately, you'll find that when you try to use capital punishment to educate someone, their capacity to remember what they learned is greatly impared. it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty Deterence is a contentious issue, so Pro cannot make an argument for it without providing outside research. In 2008, a survey was conducted on members of the prestigious Fellow in the American Society of Criminology. 88.2% of the experts do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. 74.7% say that research refutes the claim that death-penalty states have lower homicide rates than neighboring states without the death-penalty. In fact, death-penalty states had 42% higher homicide rates than non-death penalty states in 2007. [1] Also, in a 1995 national survey, two-thirds of nearly 400 police chiefs and county sheriffs responded that they did not believe the death penalty significantly lowered the number of murders [1]. “Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment”[1] A study was conducted a few years ago by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies [2]. The study covered over three decades of research and concluded that there were three fundamental flaws in current studies on deterrence: 1. “The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible.” The conclusion of the study was that research is not informative about the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates and, therefore, should not be used to inform policy judgements. There have been a vast amount of studies regarding capital punishment and deterrence such as the 10 mentioned between 2004 and 2012 here [3]. The only thing we can gather from all these studies is that the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates can’t be established, as the mentioned article concludes. There are, however, reasons why the death penalty might have very little deterrence or no deterrence at all. The first reason is the consensus of experts against deterrence. The second is presented below. For the death penalty to deter, criminals need to actively weigh the thought of execution to their potential crime. This is problematic; one, because executions happen so little in America and are applied so arbitrary that no one would believe they had much chance of receiving the death penalty. Also, murders are largely committed in the heat of passion, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or because they are mentally ill--little thought is given to the possible consequences. Those murderers in the minority, who plan the crime in advance, are counting on not being caught; they expect to avoid punishment altogether.[4]or harsher and stricter jails This debate has nothing to do with the debate.People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done Correction: Live and eat and spend the rest of your life in prison. No one contends that murderers should recieve punishment. Pro has simply given no rational argument for why it warrants the death penalty. I've already given many reasons why the death penalt is unjust. Pro can't address any of my arguments nor even give one of her own.i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims No, I haven't.Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. The only way to stop recidivism is to execute every murderer, which no person wants, or life without parole, which is an alternative to the death penalty.Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe.Seriously... The answer to our prison population IS NOT TO JUST START KILLING PEOPLE. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us.Pro obviously did not even attempt to read my case.Sources: [1] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...;

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.

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.

Con quoted-"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. 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." Argument-I never said the family is responsible for those criminals, but who said that they should be buried and why it is important. It is just a ritual which is created by the society and men. FACT- Burial is very bad and has many demerits- 1- The embalming process is toxic. 2 -Many materials go into a process. 3- Memorial parks use a lot of space and resources. 4- Funeral are very expensive. http://www.techinsider.io... So you realize that it is better to eat them and not to bury them and they were just criminals who SHOULDN'T be given a proper burial( burial has many demerits). Con quoted -"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"- Argument- You are talking about a situation which is 1 in 100 and GENERALLY actual culprits are only given death sentences, but exceptions exist everywhere, can't help. Con quoted- "Eating someone does not do anything, therefore there is absolutely no point in eating them." Argument- Why eating someone doesn't do anything. It is good because- 1- Many people will get a new dish, food and taste to eat, the same way we get by eating an animal. 2- Many people will get food. 3- Anyways men eats every living thing which is able to move so why not criminals. 4- It's better than burying them as I said above. Con quoted- "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" Argument- 1-Why there is a huge difference in eating a man and eating an animal. So what that men can walk, talk, and are associated to our society. Animals also walk, communicate, and are associated to their animal kingdom. 2-Just because you think that Man is the most superior of species. This is wrong. 3-Who gave you the right to eat animals. Just because some early evil men decided to do so and the society is carrying on the same tradition, It doesn't mean that something is right. 4-Just because we have our brains developed then animals, it doesn't give a right to us to eat them. Con quoted- "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" Argument- 1- There are crores of vegetarians in the world who are healthy and not have a lack of proteins. 2- If you think you have a lack of proteins then there are many vegetarian food which are very good in proteins and eating meat is certainly not the only option left. 3- Non vegetarians are on a sudden lack of proteins when they leave non veg food but that is because they were consuming non veg food in the first place. Why? 4- Non vegetarians only eat meat because they crave for its taste and are addicted to eat that and cover this fact by giving the reason of PROTEINS. 5- Veg food rich in proteins- Rice and Wheat, pulses, soy beans, corns, carrot, milk, egg, etc. Con quoted-"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?" Argument- 1- Chickens are not humans, cannot think for themselves, and also don't know that they exist but that doesn't mean they are not contributing to the society. They are maintaining the ecological balance for you and me to survive. And anyways WHO gave you the right to eat other living being. source- https://www.reference.com... 2- Yes I agree that pigs, cows, chickens, etc have been eaten since the dawn of time but that doesn't make it a RIGHT practice and tradition. does it? ex- Prostitution has also been there since the dawn of time and mankind but then also today it has been banned in many parts of the world. 3- Cannibalism has been frowned upon since ages but that is again created by society and as I said in my previous debate argument, that you grow up believing in what the society teaches you, whether it is right or wrong. 4- It is definitely your fault and fault of every non vegetarian in this world that people around the world are dying because of lack of food. explanation- People demand non veg food, so these animals are deliberately bred and multiplied in huge numbers. Where these animals should have been 100 naturally, now they are 5000 in number. Now in order to feed them and make them healthy so people can consume them, they are given the veg food and water which would have otherwise been given to the humans, and hence people in poor countries are dying because of lack of food. Statistics say that vegetarian food for 20 people = non veg food for 2 people. So, definitely you all non vegetarians are responsible for hunger and deaths in poor countries like Somalia, Congo, etc, because you all are addicted to that taste. aren't you? Please refer these and you will understand my point and explanation completely- Con quoted-"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" Argument- 1- A heard of wild buffaloes will kill you in the wild because their mind is not as developed as humans but that doesn't mean you should kill and eat them for your food purposes. As I said they are doing their contribution to the environment. And any sane and logical man would not go into the wild without any protection, I believe con! But yes you can kill anyone to save yourself, may be an animal. No, it wouldn't be killing them twice as I said, BURYING them has many disadvantages so just eat them right? Con quoted- "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" Argument- 1- I am just saying either you eat both prisoners and animals or don't eat any of them, that's it. I didn't get why you are calling me a hypocrite. I am pretty clear on my words. 2-And humans eat chicken, goat, cow, fish, camel, who are friendly and very good pets, These animals are not wild and would not kill you in an instant. 3-Humans around the world generally don't consume any wild animals but these innocent pets and animals are there favorite dishes, so you first get the FACTS. Con quoted-" 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. Argument- 1- Yes I agree with you, we are the most intelligent species and aren't living in the jungle anymore, but we are definitely NOT the most SUPERIOR because- a) Humans are doing everything (development in every field, growing, increasing their potentials, etc) only for themselves and not for anybody else. They are doing this to satisfy their greed and curiosity and not so that everybody can live at peace. Poor are still dying but other human doesn't give a damn. In animals, all are equal. b) Humans are criminals like murderer, fraud, rapist, robber, thugs, goons, etc., whereas no other specie is. c)Humans are the most GREEDY species on the planet.All other species just use what they need and leave the rest for others but we try to take everything for ourselves. d)Human communities are never at peace. There are wars, caste, discrimination, competition, etc which is not seen in animals and other species e)Human species is the only specie where- A single person is responsible for killing millions. This is not seen in animals. f) Humans living in cities pollute the environment the maximum and very badly because of which global warming is raising habitats are getting destroyed and even animals and tribals are being affected rigorously due to this. So definitely humans ARE NOT the most SUPERIOR species INTELLIGENT of all, YES. - NO ANIMAL is responsible for extincting other animals. It's only we humans. Con is not clear about the facts and framing wrong statements to win. - Eating animals and not eating humans is normal because society has taught us that and we are grown seeing this BUT that DOESN'T NOT make it right or the IDEAL thing. - According to con if every prisoner eater is a killer than - every non-vegetarian is also a killer,.(of animals) -I am just saying that- There is nothing wrong in eating death row prisoners as I have explained in all my points above. I conclude by - -Either you eat both- animals and humans or you don't eat anyone. http://www.bustle.com... http://www.peta.org... Con just has psychological reasons in his arguments but I have given solid ones. Voters, please think something new and don't focus on the tradition path.

I have some original points, but my rebuttal is my strong skill. “Cherry-picked articles” How is what I picked cherry picked? I had a right wing source, a relatively objective source and a left wing source all being used in my argument. Near the end of your argument, you're the one who cherry picked an article because it was an emotional left biased site about a rare example that they labeled as an epitome. “If in your opinion they are not tough enough then governments can pursue policies to make them tougher rather than bringing in the death penalty in order to satisfying the baying crowds of emotional citizens.” I want the government to enslave prisoners for their sentence, even if the sentence is shorter as a result of it so they can rebuild the houses after hurricane Maria and so they can make our phones instead of innocent Chinese children. I don’t support this for murderers because they might kill more prisoners while they are enslaved. “You made the strange claim that because somehow typically poorer criminals don't have nice lives they therefore won't resent being stripped of freedom.” They get 3 meals a day. They get to participate in the Ramen trade. Being a prisoner is not as bad as many think. “60% of male prisoners experience mental illness in the US.” Show me the cite because I searched through relevant reliable sources and I didn’t find that statistic. You can cite in the comments. “I'm not sure which lives you think you are going to be saving.” The lives that get saved from less murders because more people would be scared of the death sentence than life imprisonment, even if it is solitary confinement. Saving their lives also means upsetting less families. “If a criminal for a truly abhorrent crime is too dangerous then the Criminal Justice System must make sure they never get out and that they are kept in a secure unit in prison.” Many people consider solitary confinement cruel and unusual punishment and I don’t advocate it for any prisoner. Some prisoners I want killed, others enslaved for their sentence. “Innocent people are put to death and this is a serious problem which should make you reconsider DP.” I have told you multiple times, for every 1 innocent person that dies from DP, there are many more that get saved from the lack of murders due to less people willing to commit murder. “I suppose that withholding critical information isn't lying but it is certainly immoral and disingenuous. I think families would want to know.” If you knew someone got executed innocently, it would hurt you. The question is ignorant bliss or acknowledging pain and this is a different debate, and one where I’m not so sure of my position. I would want to know, but I wouldn’t know about other people. “Black people are 7 times more likely to be convicted wrongly of murder.” It’s due to them being poor, murders tending to happen in poor areas and black people being more likely to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. “Now, absolutely this is partly to do with poverty (which by the way is more evidence of historical and current racism)” No. Bill Gates said, “If you born poor, it’s not your mistake. If you die poor, it’s your mistake”. This means that Black people and other people can cease to be poor. It will be hard, and will take lots of work and dedication to things that are good, but it is entirely feasible. You gave me an example of an extremist, and it wasn't jurors, but a single person. Racism plays a small or non existent part affecting only a few cases. That person might have told the black convict the N word just to get the convict angry before his death; more pain. “Countries with lower homicide rates do not have DP. I have seen no convincing evidence of this. One thing is for sure, most European states do not have the death penalty and also have much lower crime and homicide rates than the US for example (since these countries have are more socio-economically similar, this is a fairer comparison to make).” I think that the reason why Europe has a much lower homicide rate than the US is because people in the US tend to be more aggressive than Europeans. After all, members of big countries tend to feel subcounsciously more powerful and this power can be abused. It’s why Brazil has a higher homicide rate than all other South American Countries except for Venezuela. Brazilians tend to feel more powerful than their neighbors simply because their country is bigger. “Your DRC example is more reasonable but I almost laughed when you brought it up as an example of a less brutal state.” I said the DRC has a lower homicide rate than SA. All other forms of violence have nothing to do with the DP. “Look, I don't deny some cases where criminals are truly evil to the end. But this policy is not about them. It's about all kinds of people who end up on death row.” They sometimes and maybe are often the same people. “While we may be able to kill some people who seem to actually deserve it the reality is that many others are deprived of their ability to make positive changes.” The 1st part of the quote, you support the DP. The 2nd part, you say that some other people can make positive changes to their society. I understand that they are sorry, but even if they are sorry, they still should provide their punishment. If someone is sorry for cutting class, that’s okay, and they should be, hopefully they don’t do it again, but they are still serving ISS. An eye for an eye is a proportional stand point. “I understand why people feel this way. If one of my family was murdered I would probably want to see the murderer dead in a ditch but that is not a rational standpoint.” Given that you pity murderers, pity is an emotion just like wrath is. An eye for an eye when carried out by the state is justice. Revenge is when it is vigilanticaly done. Murderers deserve to die. Why? Because they murdered to get there. Execution should be as painful as justified. Also, my stance is not based off of anger, but on logic. I want murderers killed by the formula D=PL^3. “Because in most cases they do show remorse and can change their ways.” Some do, some don’t. All commited the crime, irrespective of their remorse. And because execution achieves punishment, it does not present a “perpetual cycle of the normalisation of violence.” People don’t murder in retaliation of the DP. “If an abused wife shot dead her abusive husband and showed genuine guilt and sorrow for having to do that then” It depends. If it was in self defense, I wouldn’t care. If it was when she was safe, than she deserves to die. From a religious standpoint the bible supports an eye for an eye(https://www.gotquestions.org...). Jesus says to the turn the other cheek if someone hits you, but that if someone attacks YOU. If someone attacks SOMEONE ELSE, then it would be anarchic to turn the other cheek. “Since is cases where disabilities are severe, criminals are often not emotional able to appreciate the nature of crime but this is certainly not the case for all people with disabilities.” If they don’t understand that murder is wrong, then why should they object to an execution? “Furthermore, if citizens see that a state is willing to exercise violence, since that state is an authority often respected and followed by citizens, those citizens can then believe that violence is acceptable in the same way that kids who grow up in abusive households also often have a perverted notions of violence.” This varies from person to person. Some people react violent in society that won’t kill them and some people, some people enjoy jail. I know someone who’s name is Ilona Furey. She grew up with a dad who was a drunk. He was addicted to alcohol. Does she emulate her Dad? No. She knows what bad alcohol does and she will probably never drink alcohol. If one’s parent is abusive, then someone may see how bad that is and therefore would not want to emulate it in their life. What is a show execution? “You seem to have conceded that executions are absolutely horrible ordeals. I'm glad you believe this; so do I.” If they get executed publicly, then it would raise money without taxes to produce more through trials where less innocent people get executed. “This is further supportive of my proposal to abolish DP since it is cruel, painful and thus inhumane.” Most executions are lethal injections, which are designed to be painless. “True justice is a criminal turning to the victims and apologising to them for their actions.” True justice is punishment and reward. People should get rewarded for good things and punished for bad things. “Let's be rule utilitarianist here.” The definition of unitarianism is, “an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it.” https://www.utilitarianism.com.... In here, the victim will tend to feel happier if the murderers are put to death. Our tax dollars should not go towards keeping murderers alive. Although the DP costs more, the cost can be offset by public executions where ticket prices instead of tax dollars can fund the executions and more through trials to not have as many innocent people die. https://www.theglobeandmail.com...... Here, you accuse me of cherry picking examples yet you cherry picked an example from a left biased source. Also, this is not mainstream amongst murder convicts.