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

In a democratic society, individuals who have completed their sentences for felony offenses should have their right to vote restored.
NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, individuals who have completed their sentences for felony offenses should have their right to vote restored [Definitions] (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felony: a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year (3) Completed Sentence: the fulfillment of the punishment for a crime, including any parole or probation [Observations] (1) The resolution argues for restoring the voting rights of individuals who have served their time for felony offenses. However, in a democratic society, it is essential to consider the impact of such a decision on the overall fairness and justice of the system. (2) The resolution focuses on "completed sentences" versus "active sentences." This distinction is crucial, as individuals who have completed their sentences have reintegrated into society and should be treated as equal citizens under the law. [Value/Value Criterion] Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution, as it deals with the rights of individuals who have committed crimes. A democratic society should strive for fairness and justice in all aspects, including the treatment of former felons. The value of justice will be demonstrated through the maximization of fairness in the following arguments. (1) Retribution and Rehabilitation. Retribution involves giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When an individual commits a felony, they violate the social contract and deserve punishment. However, once the punishment has been served, the focus should shift to rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Allowing former felons to vote is a crucial step in this process, as it acknowledges their reintegration and participation in the democratic process. (2) Legal Consistency. When individuals are incarcerated, they lose certain rights as part of their punishment. However, once they have completed their sentences, they should be treated as equal citizens under the law. Restoring voting rights to individuals who have completed their sentences is a matter of legal consistency and fairness. (3) Social Reintegration. Allowing former felons to vote is essential for their reintegration into society. Voting is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and denying this right to individuals who have completed their sentences can create a sense of alienation and hinder their reintegration. By restoring voting rights, society acknowledges the completion of

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.

The words discrimination and fair describing the same thing, is contradictory. And the right to not be dead and the right to decent living conditions (witch capitalism floats so it really doesn't matter). The main point is you're devaluing the rights of man for all time for a temporary shock to the population. It's simply not worth it. We need to punish these people yes remove them from power yes but wasting life and ruining our future is not equitable to the gain.

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. I accepted this debate because the instigator's opening was very articulate, well-written, and clear, which are my favourite aspects of anything I read. Also, I thought I might have something to contribute to this subject.My opponent expressed an intention to defend the claim that "Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system." As such, she is assuming the burden of proof and placing none on me. Although ordinarily in a debate, I would try my best to defeat my opponent's arguments, in this case, I'm genuinely interested in arriving at the truth. If my opponent convinces me of her point of view, I will concede and gladly hand the victory to her.Utilitarianism in principlePro defines utilitarianism as "the principle that all actions are right if they are useful for the benefit of the society." Ever since utilitarianism was first thought of and given a name, it has come under attack, and the attacks usually take the form of coming up with obvious counter-examples. One only needs to come up with some scenario in which an action would benefit society but still be obviously wrong. For example, it may benefit society to kill an innocent man, but it wouldn't for that reason be right. So Pro needs to give us a robust defense of utilitarianism against such counter-examples before her argument can go through.I'll give her one counter-example to defend against. It would benefit society if all old people who are living off of social security and medicare were put to sleep. Health care is the biggest burden on the federal government with most recipients being elderly people.[1] Putting those people to sleep would be a huge relief to tax-payers, and it would go a long way in rescuing the country from the impending doom from a growing debt and increased taxes. Yet it's clearly wrong to kill people just because they are a burden on society.Utilitarianism in practiceEven if we use utilitarian principles to determine our justice system, Pro needs to show that rehabilitation works. How successful are rehabilitation programs? How would we even measure such a thing?Suppose somebody commits a crime and goes to prison. After undergoing some rehabilitation program, he re-enters society and never commits the crime again. You might be tempted to say the rehabilitation worked, but you can't know that since you don't know that he would've committed the crime if he had not gone through the program. He might not have committed the crime anyway.Some people are repeat offenders and some are not, so it's going to be difficult to determine whether rehabilitation programs work or not.FairnessPro defined retribution as "punishment that is justly deserved." The problem with putting more emphasis on rehabilitation rather than retribution is that it's not fair. Some people would get more punishment than they deserve while others would get less. The reason is because the length of stay or the severity of the conditions of imprisonment would be determined by what it takes to rehabilitate a person rather than what they deserve.Suppose, for example, that in general it took longer to rehabilitate people who smoke marijuana than to rehabilitate people who commit rape. If we emphasized rehabilitation over retribution, then marijuana smokers would get longer sentences than rapists. But rape is clearly a more serious crime than smoking marijuana. It would be unfair to give a marijuana smoker a longer sentence than a rapist just because it takes longer to rehabilitate a marijuana smoker.The 8th amendment to the Constitution protects against cruel and unusual punishment. Depending on what it actually took to rehabilitate somebody, the punishment inflicted on a person could easiliy be cruel and unusual in light of the crime they are guilty of. The severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the crime. That is fair. It's also the definition of retribution.Pro's contentionsAll of Pro's contentions presuppose utilitarianism--a presupposition which I have already challenged. But if we grant utilitarianism for the sake of argument, her contentions still seem to be problematic.1. Rehabilitation can help our communityPro quotes an article from the New York Times, but the article doesn't say anything about rehabilitation. Rather, it argues that long prison sentences should be reserved for people who are dangerous to society. The purpose of prison, according to this article, is neither retribution nor rehabilitation, but simply protecting society from dangerous people by locking them up.2. Retribuation has strong negative effects on children and familiesThis is true in some cases, although the article she quotes doesn't support her contention. The article points out correlations between parents going to prison and children dropping out of school, but correlation is not causation. It could be there's a correlation just because of the kind of families these people are a part of. Trashy people are more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes, so trashiness could be the cause of both.Granted, it is unfair for children to have to suffer because of the crimes of their parents, but it is unfair of the parents to have put their kids in that situation. It isn't unfair of the government. In fact, giving criminals what they deserve is the very definition of fairness. And in many cases, putting parents in prison actually protects the children. That is especially the case when the parent is going to prison for murdering the mother or molesting the children.3. Rehabilitation is more cost effectivePro quotes an article saying that it's more cost effective to send a drug user to rehab than to prison. The weakness in this contention is that it takes ones specific crime and attempts to extrapolate to all crimes. The resolution of the debate is that rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in general, not just for the specific crime of drug use. Rehabilitation may work in the case of drug use because people on drugs want to get off. But we can't extrapolate that to all crimes. Muder, theft, robbery, fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, pedophilia, rape, domestic violence, etc. cannot be fixed by rehabilitation in the same way drug addiction can, and prison is more effective at protecting society from these types of criminals than rehabilitation.ConclusionWe mustn't think that it's either retribution or rehabilitation. We can have both. The question is which should be emphasized. Retribution is based on the moral principles of fairness, blame, culpability, and desert. Pro needs to undermine these moral principles and defend utilitarianism.[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

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. False. Here is an intensive study that shows recidivism rates are 25% for federal inmates. This study has a sample of nearly 150,000 offenders, which is vastly different than any other study [1]. 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.Again, see the study just cited. 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. Where is Pro’s evidence that ONLY drug traffickers get the safety valve? Why wouldn’t first time non-violent drug dealers, growers, or users get the safety-valve? Why not fraud or larceny?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.Con's stats were cited and presented in the first sentence of Con's round two argument (after clarification points). Why are Pro’s stats more reliable when I was using stats from 2009 to use for my data, since most of it was from 2009? The difference between our stats was about 10,000 and separated by about three years, which makes sense. Also, I think it is important to state that Pro never cited the prison population via your source; you simply said it was 200,000, which your source says otherwise (217,000 and change). 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.First, I never said vocational training or drug treatment doesn’t work. I simply said it is already offered as the status quo. Why would it work in one instance but not the other, as Pro suggests? Additionally, I did imply that vocational training is irrelevant if no one would hire you. CON then proceeds to argue that my source wants to redo the safety valve, not replace it, this is irrelevant. This is relevant when Pro’s source is opposed to reform, which is what Pro’s position is.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) And I showed how I came up with half of the savings cited using Pro’s evidence (savings per inmate). How are my calculations wrong? If my calculations show a materially different result, that means someone was wrong, most likely one of Pro’s sources.2. Irrelevant. … It is not irrelevant if I “proved” the savings were $423 million. It shows incredibility on Pro's sources. 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…Why would this only save “millions”? I know this is from 2006, but if there is to be $1 billion saved in federal prisons alone, why would there only be a savings of “millions” NATIONALLY; this would include city, county, and state levels. This is another example of Pro’s use of sources that contradict each other. Con has yet to see savings of $27,888/inmate as stated, but has seen a mention of $25,000/inmate from a source. Pro underreports prison population by almost 10%. Uses recidivism rates that measure three years, but promotes a program that hasn’t been around that long, thus these figures are improper to compare.The constant misinformation is leads to incredibility.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. First, Pro has provided no evidence of this income, Pro has simply stated it. Second, I have provided counter-argument stating the success is less than you offer (18% of one group fails). Also, I stated the program has been active less than recidivism rates measure, therefore it is too early to tell. Thirdly, Pro accuses Con of biased sources, yet this source is from the minutes of meeting promoting the success of this program to the county. If the BOP is biased towards inflated success, then why is this source above suspicion?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. There is not enough evidence to suggest Dallas has it right. Pro promotes this Dallas plan, which Pro constantly uses the figure of 450 clients (even though there is more). Using Pro’s words, ONLY drug traffickers get the safety valve and ONLY 450 in 2009. This success is based on only helping (450/1422) 31% of the arrested individuals [2]. It is easy to pick such a small sample and extrapolate from that. It is equally as easy to pick the most likely to succeed. We need to factor in the 15 people that failed in only one year’s time, out of 80 in the next group (18%).While that sounds good, consider this: the three-year reincarceration rate in Texas for those released from prison was 24.3% in 2007. The parole revocation rate for 2010 was 8.2% [3]. Con’s claim is that, since this sample is incredibly small, and we do not know the characteristics of these individuals, and the shortened time frame, all point to the Dallas experiment as on par to the status quo. 2. Any succes is better than prison… Any success is better than prison, but there is zero evidence that would suggest that these same individuals would not succeed in a supervised release, probation, or short prison term (all the status quo). Pro has offered no substantial reason, method, or evidence as to why recidivism is lessened. Only that it is. Yet, the Dallas experiment appears to be failing at its first expansion (the 80 clients) at the same rate as the status quo in Texas.Vote Con. http://www.uscourts.gov... http://www.drugfreedallas.org... http://www.lbb.state.tx.us...

Pro's argument rests on one idea: That criminals enjoy what their crimes. I would like evidence of this. If this is not true, then the possibility exists that they may be constructive citizens once released. Norway would is evidence that this seems to be the case. Indeed, Norway's prisons aren't nearly as miserable as ours, and they have lower recidivism rates[1]. There is also the fact that robbery may be justifiable in some instances, such as to save someone's life. 1. http://www.time.com...

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.

Okay then. Here is where our definitions differ; I believe a crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property. You believe it to be doing anything against the law. You see, I wouldn't consider self-abusive actions to be a crime. For instance, if there's a guy sitting in his room getting high, I figure that to be his own business, just as if you're shooting up heroine or anything else. I do not believe this to be something truly deserving a prison sentence (since what they're doing is as much of a punishment as anything) unless they are hurting someone else (ex: bad influence to their children, dealing drugs, hurting neighbors, driving under the influence of a drug, etc, etc). As I said though, I most certainly agree that if a person has been infallibly proved of committing a crime like murder or rape that he or she should be punished. "alot of your argument is about how it is unjust to allow the decision to fall into the hands of the judge, the judge doesnot make the decision, the jury do." I'm aware that the judge doesn't make the decision and the jury does. That would be why I am in the affirmative position of this resolution. I'm arguing why it is just to have jury nullification, and unjust not to. Therefor, yes, a lot of my argument is based on the fact that it is unjust to leave all power to the judge, because I'm attempting to prove my point that jury nullification is just, and trying to say why lacking it is unjust. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear. "use the scenario of a murder case, the defendant has evidence against him or her and there was a witness to the crime the judge is convinced that this person is guilty but the jury nullify the case ." You give no back up for this murder scenario. Jury nullification isn't used for something like this, it's used in cases where the law itself is questioned. I suppose you could be thinking of something like the O.J. Simpson case, in which the jury ruled "not guilty", but that wasn't jury nullification, that was simply a bad jury ruling. There is a difference. A jury ruling is based more on the infallible facts of the case, like yes this man did murder his neighbor, while jury nullification is used in a case where them law is thought to be unfair by the jury like, this man didn't pay his income tax. Very different. Please give me an actual case in which jury nullification has been used to set a murderer free over and over again. "now every thing could be okay, however majority chance is that when you let this person go that they will commit crime over and over, are you just going to keep nullifying the case?" Also, do you realize that even on the off chance that a murder case was nullified, and the same man came back to the same court, that the chances of them nullifying it over and over, every time they committed the crime is absurd? A jury is made up of common, everyday people. You find me one common, everyday person who would want to set a convicted murderer or rapist free. Then find me a group of them, a big enough group to make up the majority of the jury. I can guarantee that you are going to have an exponentially hard time doing this. And to then find an equally rare group of people for each murder case that the same man is charged with, so that he may be set free time and time again. It's so highly implausible that I don't believe that it really supports your statement of jury nullification being a danger to society. "yeah the government should be kept in check but jury nullification is not the act to use to do so." Alright, if jury nullification isn't a way to keep the government in check, then what do you propose? Why is it not a way to keep the government in check, and what is a better way to do this? "if it is thepeoples job to keep the government in line then how are the people to be kept in line?" I think that I already kind of answered that question in your cross examination, but I'll answer it again. The people make local laws, and try and keep their community safe since they have to live there. No one wants to live in a dangerous, scary place, so citizens are going to try and keep each other in line simply to lead secure, comfortable lives. Through the laws they make, and this want for a safe community, the people keep the people in line, just as the people keep the government in line. I'm not certain that I fully understand the question you presented me with though.

1) I believe the idea behind voting is to have a say over what the decisions of the government are which affect us. Non-citizens who are living in the United States are affected by the decisions of our government, and yet are often not represented in that decision making process. I consider this an injustice: they get ruled over by the united states, but don't get the privilege of voting. They also get taxed without representation, considering they have to abide by the US tax law before they're even allowed to vote. Why are we putting up with what the founders despised: taxation without representation? Either they should be exempt from taxes, or we need to allow them to vote. Considering some taxes are automatic, like the sales tax, it seems the only option is to allow them to vote, since it would be impossible to exempt non-citizens from the excise taxes like sales tax. Additionally, they are held liable for our laws yet don't get a say in the laws even though they are bound to follow them. They have all of the responsibilities of a citizen essentially(paying taxes, following the law etc), but we don't give them the benefits of citizens. We should. 2) There is precedent in the United States history to allowing non-citizens to vote. The supreme court once stated, in the supreme court case Minor vs Happersett in 1874, that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote", despite this, federal law currently prevents non-citizens from voting[1]I'll leave it at this for nowSources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Their is a difference between being winning and being right, as so many debates on this website can tell us. This is also why I am not talking about me winning rather the morality of the votes (use of ought). 1. there are multiple opponents, not addressed this. We are debating on the morality of the decisions and because they have not conformed to the conduct of rightness, making the fair and right decision. he should have received no votes. 2. Look to intro Extend all points from PRO

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


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

In a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote once they have served their sentence.

In a democratic society, the right to vote should not be denied to felons who have completed their sentence. The resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement occurs within a democratic framework, and a procedural view of democracy holds that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected, and equality of all is the implied value. Democracy is defined as having or practicing social equality, and without equality, a full democracy cannot be established.

Contention One: Enfranchising Felons is Directly Proportional to the Increase of Democracy

A. Felon Disenfranchisement Hurts Democratic Values and Rights

Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, <http://www.abanet.org...>, accessed September 9, 2008

The denial of voting rights to felons who have completed their sentence is difficult to justify. Americans have long professed that once you "pay your debt to society," you are free to rejoin the community. Disenfranchisement continues to deny rights of citizenship decades after a sentence has been completed, even for a one-time, nonviolent offense. Disenfranchisement becomes an even greater challenge for a democratic society when voting is considered a fundamental expression of speech. The traditional goals of sentencing leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction.

B. Restoration of the Right to Vote Enables Rehabilitation and Reintegration into Democratic Society

Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, <http://www.abanet.org...>, accessed September 9, 2008

Restoring voting rights can be seen as being in harmony with the rehabilitative goal of sentencing. Engaging offenders in productive relationships with the community is in society's interest if an objective of sentencing is to encourage offenders to become less antisocial. Voting is clearly one means of doing so. Reintegration is a key step to achieve a truly democratic society, which increases the legitimacy of democracy.

Contention Two: Allowing Felons to Vote, Once Released, is Consistent with the Return of Other Rights.

Jeffrey Reiman, "Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfr

1. My parents don't vote, even after I showed them why they should vote. So technicality I am not represented plus parents have to munch control over another person's life. I study social studies daily (I want to be a social studies teacher), so if you are saying that I can't vote, that is mistake. I learn from the past. So I and the rest of world can make better decisions in the future. I wish that local and national news everyday, I read newspapers too. If you are saying that I am not inform, thus making me unable to vote , that is just wrong. Teens do it all time with technology,we can access information in seconds how many adults know their senators or reps. Or even the cabinet or all of the issues on a party platform? How many adults know their rights under the bill of rights ? Denying me and countless teens is violates the 14 amendment, we are all to be treat equal over the law. Nations around the world have lower their ages, and their growing support for youth suffrage. Last week, Nancy Pelosi said that she supported the Lowering voting age. I bet you don't even know who she is? She is the head minority leader in the house and former speaker of the house. Due to the number of characters allow, please open these links and consider them part of my argument, http://www.youthrights.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Con, I have already said that "please don't judge me". I have created this debate just to try something new and creepy, that's it. One day this idea just popped into my head and I felt to create a debate out of it. Arguments- 1-See, the prisoners who are injected a lethal injection or who are executed are definitely not social workers or saints,right?. They are hardcore criminals such as murderers, rapists, etc, who themselves have killed many other humans. I don't think they deserve any human rights and giving them a proper funeral would make no difference between a good human and these dangers to society. If my father would have committed such crimes and then sentenced to death, I wouldn't have given a 2nd thought about him, because nothing justifies a criminal and that too murderers who get death. 2- Cannibalism is a mental disease, agreed because it involves killing innocent human for eating, but I am not talking about that but about death row inmates and as I said above, they are hardly humans, and should be just eliminated as soon as possible. 3-You are saying that eating other man's flesh is addictive, but that is also true for all the non-veg that we eat. Eating chicken, mutton, beef, pork, etc are all as addictive as consuming cocaine or heroine, BUT have we given up eating those, absolutely not. So why lay extra emphasis on this. 4-You are saying that eating other man's flesh is a DISGUSTING and HORRIBLE idea, OK. Then why not eating other animals is also considered horrible and disgusting. Why are we comfortable eating innocent animals. Why does 95% of world's population consumes meat. Eating meat increases our chances of getting heart attack, blood pressure, cancer and many other diseases. A scientific study has said that If people stopped eating meat, than all the people on this globe will get enough food since 20 vegetarian people's food is equal to only 2 non vegetarian's food. Because of these meat eaters, lakhs of people are dying and are malnutrition ed in poor countries such as Congo, Ghana, and many more. But have we stopped eating meat? Certainly not. We don't give a damn about other people dying or the diseases which we are prone to get by consuming meat, because for us, SATISFYING our taste buds is more important than other MAN's life. Isn't it? In fact meat consumption is increasing by each year. So definitely humans DON'T know what they" SHOULD DO" or what they" SHOULD NOT," as quoted by you. 5-So basically we are fine eating innocent WILD animals who are CONTRIBUTING so much to our ecological system in which the HUMAN RACE is surviving but we have a problem eating other man who is USELESS to the society, and in fact is DANGEROUS for people. Why? 6- We have no problems when a cow or buffalo is cut which are so much useful to us but we will not except eating other man as food though he is on a death row. If you ask this question to a normal guy outside, he will just say that- "come on man. Eating other man is not right. We are humans, not wild animals" as also quoted by. But can you answer why it is not right? certainly not. One reason for this is that We humans think that we are the most superior species on this planet and deserve every form of respect and dignity, but the truth is that we are the most menacing and harmful species for planet EARTH. REMEMBER, the development which we are doing is only for humans and not for animals and tribal people living in forests but an animal's and tribal's contribution is for them as well as for us. We are also polluting EARTH just to satisfy our greed which has also made life for other species HARDER, SO- "HOW AND WHY ARE WE THE MOST SUPERIOR SPECIE ON EARTH AS HAS WRONGFULLY BEEN ASSUMED BY US". AND why is a HUMAN life more important than an ANIMAL life. 7- Humans tend to believe in what has been taught to them since childhood. We are comfortable eating animals since we have seen this since we were kids, but eating humans is a taboo, as it is considered, and that's why YOU reacted by saying-"how can you even start a debate on such horrible idea". 8- Humans have consumed other human's flesh in cases of famine in Korea and also in 20th century when some 90 people were trapped on a mountain, and since they had nothing to eat they started eating their dead friends, as when they were rescued they were only 45 of them. So this proves that it is not dangerous for health as all the survivors showed no sign of any kind of health complications after being rescued, and don't forget, it was raw meat, not even cooked. 9- Human eats every living moving object, just man is remaining on his MENU. 10- I am not telling to eat innocent people for food, but the dangerous NON-CONTRIBUTORS to the society. 11- So far you haven't given any solid reason, that why should we not consume death row prisoners and what's wrong in that. You just have stated that it is disgusting, horrible, mental illness, and other impractical arguments like that 12- Please tell me one good reason why HUMAN life is more important than ANIMAL life. I am looking forward to some really solid points, which have logic. Please don't again repeat that- How can you eat other human, it is Horrible, Disgusting, How would you feel if someone would eats your dad and other such stuff as I believe that I have countered all those points above. Looking forward for your arguments.

I think we need to clarify something. You state that people are guilty; that is why they are in FEDERAL prison. While it is true they were found guilty, the inmates of federal prison are guilty of FEDERAL crimes (not state crimes) AND they are sentenced to prison (not probation). Recidivism is a relapse into criminal behavior, like committing a crime, not violating parole by having a girl spend the night [2]. The number of people re-arrested are not the same as the number of people who recidivate, as these people can be re-arrested for a new crime, a parole/probation violation, or an arrest that doesn’t lead to a charge. As previously stated, your sources were not complete, so I could only use what information was provided. Your second, and core, argument was from 2004, so I used data from that time period. I have new stats from fiscal year 2009, compiled December 2010, I hope this is current enough for you. I would also like to disagree with your statement about another valid option being irrelevant to the debate. The argument would be “certain federal inmates should not receive an alternative sentence because there is a better option”. However, because I admit we should not be arguing the merits of such an alternative (hi-jacking the debate), I will yield this point. NOTE TO VOTERS AND COMMENTATORS: PLEASE COMMENT ON THIS SIDE ISSUE. Now, onto the fun… The population of federal prisons was 208,118 in 2009 [7]; however, the number of people who went to federal prison in fiscal year 2009 was 75,431, which was pretty close to my other number presented [1]. So, I stand by my argument for the savings being overestimated. Also, almost half of these prisoners are NOT U.S. citizens, so they surely shouldn’t benefit from this program. Using these numbers, ruling out non-citizens and assuming the of remainder 37.2% are safety-valve eligible and did not receive the safety-valve at a rate of $27,888 (Pro’s first source states $25,000) per inmate, this would save the DOJ a whopping $432,748,235.97, which is an overestimate for sure. This is to help 15,517 would-be inmates. How does “eliminating” 20.6% of the incoming inmates, which is 7.5% of the entire prison population, only constitute a savings of 7.1% over the entire FY2010 prison budget? One of your sources still did not work, the one regarding drug abuse treatment. I will stipulate that drug abuse treatment, and vocational skills for that matter, help with post-prison success. However, I do not believe your mystery source can justify its claim. If people aren’t buying drugs, then the drug dealers are doing less business, therefore less crime is being committed. Without seeing the study, I cannot agree that these people are less likely to commit new crimes. As I said, I will stipulate that education is a factor of post-prison success, and quite possibly a factor for their initial crimes. Over half of the sentenced inmates in 2009 did NOT have a high-school education. [1] However, the status quo provides for both GED and vocational education [3]. The status quo also provides for drug treatments [4]. Using your source, the safety valve is already in place, and used quite frequently [1,5]. “’1) the defendant has no more than one criminal history point; 2) the defendant ‘did not use violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense’; 3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury; 4) the defendant was not a leader or organizer of the offense; and 5) the defendant has fully cooperated with the government.’ The defendant must satisfy all five indices to warrant a “safety valve” departure from a mandatory minimum sentence.” However, this first source you cite is opposed to the current safety valve definition. They argue that more people should qualify, not that a new model should be in place. Speaking of this new model, it doesn’t work as well as you think in Dallas. Now, assuming that those that commit new offenses are included in those that fail, the system, after the first 21 months of the program, has had only 10 failures in 450 clients (2.2%). This program did take on more “high-risk” clients after inception. In those 11 months, they had 15 fails out of 80 (18.6%). They also were in charge of bond supervision for alcohol monitoring, in which 8 failed in the past month, out of 1000 (3.6% annually at this rate). These numbers aren’t too bad, but not great. I would argue that the reason it works is because it costs these criminals between $212.92 and $486.67 PER MONTH, depending on what devices they are forced to wear. This is the main reason why it works as well as it does. “The offenders tend to buy-in to the program more when they are paying the out of pocket cost” [6] Another thing to consider is how this Dallas method, which has DAILY CONTACT, will be applied nationwide. The federal government would have to have offices in each major city devoted to the well-being of these criminals, which would cost quite a bit. Assume each worker of this new program is assigned 30 people for NATIONWIDE DAILY contact, there would need to be 517 new employees. If they are paid salary and benefits of $45,000 (which would be about the median wage [8]), this is a cost of over $23 million, which is over 5% of the savings in wages alone. But even more important than the savings, is the cost to the inmate. Chances are, if they were in trouble with the law, especially with drugs, they had trouble with money in the first place. How can these people afford the supervision? They can’t. Pro is arguing that the status quo is broken, but doesn’t seem to realize that the tools for fighting recidivism, in his mind, are job training and rehab; these tools are already available to inmates. So, Pro thinks that instead of the status quo, we should be forcing the inmates to pay for the supervisors who will force the inmate to better themselves. Isn’t the old adage “you can’t help those who don’t want it”? I stated that the real issue for recidivism is society, largely not being able to get a job. If my personal experience isn’t a viable source (which I understand), then here are a few more. All state that ex-cons find it hard to find work [9]. If they can’t find work, they get desperate. We pretend we want to give people a second chance, but, really, we don’t. This is why government offers grants to those that help, as I said needs to be done, because businesses are very unlikely to take a risk with little chance of reward [10]. There needs to be no new alternative sentences, the status quo is fine. It isn't perfect, but it is not cost-effective to offer services that are already offered in a different atmosphere that causes financial duress on those we're trying to help. Vote Con. Sorry these are a bit out of order, but I reorganized my thoughts… http://www.ussc.gov... http://www.nij.gov... http://www.bop.gov... http://www.bop.gov... http://www.johntfloyd.com... http://www.dallascounty.org... http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... http://www.bls.gov... http://www.saferfoundation.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I accept. Just one thing I'd like to clarify: does this change the judicial system at all, beyond convictions? Are all of the various routes to a "not guilty" vote still present after this stance is implemented?

I. Our Unalienable Rights A serious criminal offense may involve the criminal attacking the rights of another person, and therefore the criminal is not entitled to the normal rights of a citizen. Also, I am not limiting this to the US. II. Cost "The costs of a death row inmate are far higher than the costs of any other prisoner. Seattle University found that it costs $1 million more for a death penalty case than a case where a life sentence is the verdict. This is because of the costs for defense, prosecution, multiple trials, etc" The cost for defense and prosecution depends on the status of the criminal and the victim. Also, a prisoner with a life-sentence takes up resources such as food, water, electricity for his life in the prison, which is costly as well. With death penalty, there will be less need of prisons, and therefore less prison guards, so policemen could spend that time pursuing new criminals rather than taking care of the captured ones. III. Innocents "No matter how good the defense is, we can never know for sure if someone is innocent or guilty. 144 people have been released from death row after being proven innocent" It is also possible that after the death verdict being announced, forged evidence is presented to save the criminal and they get saved. Also, the social prejudice of being a former criminal still has to be endured by the person which can be disturbing to the mind. People mayn't even want to give the person any job in their workplace. IV. Racial Prejudice "While some may argue that the severity of the crime you commit is a large factor in your sentence, race also takes hand in the verdict." We must make law education better and change the mindset that race matters. Also, severity of the crime could be measured in number of people affected, such as mass-murderer, bank robbery etc, or whether the victim is alive or dead. And anyways, racial prejudice can result in life imprisonment of black people, and the biased media would show that there are more black inmates than white. V. It Doesn't Provide Closure "Many of those for the death penalty provide the argument that it gives closure to the victim's family and helps the coping process. In fact, only about 2.7% relevant cases bring closure [8] because the aspect of revenge was later contemplated by the families." What more revenge could you have than death? If you mean by family of the criminal, revenge can also happen due to life imprisonment or even a 30 day jail term. "In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombing, the remaining culprit Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. Only 15% of Boston residents wanted him to be executed. [9] In another story, two parents who lost their 8-year-old son urged against it in an open letter." There could be a public poll for the death penalty, and the judicial system could be made democratic. Death penalty could also be given depending whether the defendant is okay with it or not. If the victim wants to give death penalty to the criminal, then it should be on the judge's discretion whether to give death penalty or not.' In the punishment of imprisonment, there is a chance that the criminal may escape before his sentence. Also, it increases the chance for discrimination as politicians get a less strict sentence and a poor black man gets a longer sentence. With death penalty, there is no varying degree of punishment. Also, death penalty should not be given when there is inconclusive evidence. Only when the evidence is concrete and the defendant lacks strong points should death penalty be given.

Yes, I stated that if pedophilia was curable, then there would be more treatment centers treating instead of incarcerating them. I stand behind my statement because even if there were more treatment centers they would cost just as much to run, as running a program to treat pedophilia while incarcerated. Convicted pedophiles are in fact isolated from general population when incarcerated, and yes they may have their autonomy and freedom taken away from them as a message of punishment but that"s not as bad as a child suffering the rest of their lives for the actions a pedophile has committed against them. Therefore pedophiles like many others should in fact have many more privileges taken away from them as punishment for them to actually understand they are being punished as much as a child is suffering for the rest of their lives. Removing convicted pedophiles from society is not just beneficial to the children or the victim"s families and the rest of the society, most of all its actually beneficial to the actual convicted pedophile." It protects the convicted pedophile from people of the society such as victim"s, family members and just community members from taking action against the convicted pedophile for just being a convicted pedophile."

Your argument is good, your points are well made, and I have just realized one thing. That is, that each of us agree that education and punishment should be balanced, right? Now that I have isolated the things that we agree on, we can look at more concerning matters. Harlan: "I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring." Can I just say, that criminals decide to donate their organs, as with the case of the gang leader in Singapore. He said to his wife and mistress that he wanted to donate his organs. After he was hanged, the organs were given to needy people, saving at least 5 lives. Harlan: "You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life." Harlan, do judges really put them in for life? Face the reality, they will not be put in for life. After another 10-20 years, they'll come out and kill more. 'One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions.' That is a good point made by whoever made that. Harlan: "'Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe.' Well, too bad. It's their job." I can point out that people can find new jobs. Harlan: "Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness." If everyone was as narrow-minded as Harlan, people would kill more openly, knowing that they won't be jailed up for long. Knowing that they will be out soon. To do it all again. Thats usually/always the case. 'Two gun' Crowley: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one - one that would do no body any harm." And when Crowley arrived at the electric chair, did he say: "This is what I get for killing?". No. He said: "This is what I get for defending myself." Al Capone: "I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." So I would like to conclude, that I reckon that education and punishment should be used together with greater effectiveness and greater efficiency. The death sentence will be used in appropriate situations. But if possible, be deterred. Therefore, the death sentence should stay, and be used under certain circumstances. Also, alright has one L.

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

I am proposing making money and saving every hard working tax payer money by instituting fight clubs to raise money which we spend million on to house, Shelter, Feed, And educate in our correctional systems. This is a win-win for the average worker as they will receive a tax break from the revenue generated through cable packages and pay per view from the fight clubs. So you don't mind the serial killer that dismembers their victims, The rapist who traumatizes victims for life, The pedophile who ruins a child's life and the violent bank robbers, Thieves and other criminals, You are fine with that, But a fight club in prison is an issue with you? I support torture in interrogations 100%. Criminals today know that they don't have to say anything and the courts will plea bargain with them for lighter sentences or make them become informants. 89% of convictions are plead down before trial. WHY? I say we torture suspects and beat or water board the truth out of them. Torture is the most effective method of getting information from a suspect. Criminals all have a choice before they commit a crime, Once you commit a crime, You have lost all your rights and deserve to be put in a fight club and or tortured for info. case closed

I apologise for the misinterpretation of the verse from the Bible. I accept it may not have been the best quote to use. In spite of this I am still not in favour of the death penalty. A law or punishment should not be merely a form of deterrence. It should be a way to enforce and promote good values and attitudes. Simply putting a barrier rather than giving people the opportunity to change their ways will not change anything in my opinion. There will always be crimes, the law will always be broken and so it cant be said that a death penalty is the complete answer to problems. My point is that if this act was lifted or simply if the criminals were to move to a location where the death penalty is not in place, then crime rates will increase again. A death penalty will not ensure the stability of our community in the long-term as in order for a more permanent state of stability. peace and prosperity needs to occur because people are willing to refuse immoral acts, not just because of the punishments placed by the law, although I accept that this will have an impact. By your request I will reinstate my last question. You mentioned how "Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind." My question is why does this verse only apply to the public and why does it not to the government should they make a mistake in their judgement. Also, I would appreciate if you made it clear to which extent a death penalty should be placed. Do you think that death penalties should apply for every serious crime or murder irrespective of the circumstances (such as the accidental killing) or do you think that it should only be applicable in certain situations? If so which?


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

It is contradictory for the state to impose taxes on prisoners while denying them the right to vote. Prisoners are not considered "civically dead" when it comes to financial obligations to the state, as they are still subject to taxation on their earnings and savings. The principle of "no taxation without representation" should apply to them as well.

First, I will address how my opponent attempts to defend his case, then move on to my own, and to my opponent's "voting issues." HIS VALUE "This was saying we SHOULDN'T PUNISH THE CRIMES not that we shouldn't look to humanity." This statement occurred when my opponent tried to defend his core value. I must implore again, why shouldn't we punish crimes? Sure, we have rights, but don't we need punishment when we commit crimes? Isn't that justice? His value here falls. HIS CRITERION His only defense of his criterion is to cross apply his arguments in defense of his criterion. He does not actually address what I have said, but only tries to reinforce it with his arguments. Since I have already taken out his entire argument, (Which I will do again shortly. If you already believe that I have taken out his arguments, you may disregard the following) he has no defense. His criterion here falls. HIS CONTENTION 1 He starts to defend this by saying that punishing people is immoral. WHAT? I have already addressed this: PUNISHMENT IS NECESSARY, IT IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE JUSTICE. He also defends this by saying that we cannot use people as a means to an end. I actually agree. He does not actually show why affirming uses people as the means. If you affirm, you actually UPHOLD his contention 1. It flows into the affirmative case. HIS CONTENTION 2 He, again, defends this by saying that punishment is immoral. I addressed this already. His contention 2 falls. So, his entire case has fallen, value and criterion included. I will now uphold my own case. MY CONTENTION 1 He tries to attack this by saying that affirming is immoral. He does NOT actually address anything that I said, simply that it is immoral. Warrant please? I have already said how punishment is just, and necessary. Contention 1: Upheld. MY CONTENTION 2 He only attacks this with his criterion. (Which has already fallen) Humans are not means to an end, yes, we get it now. He does not attack what I said, again. Contention 2: Upheld. He leaves several thoughts for the voters. He says that I dropped his case. If you would be so kind as to read my previous arguments in the previous rounds, you will see that this is not the case. He only does not want to adress my attacks. He also claims that I haven't touched his "RA". This, AGAIN, is not the case. I HAVE shown why affirming is moral. In the end of his argument, he says that you should vote for him because: (a) "my RA was untouched" and (b)"because humanity and the categorical imperative have been shown to be superior" I just addressed the "RA," and if you read my arguments, you would also find that I addressed his categorical imperative. So now, according to my opponent, you are left with no reasons to vote for him. So, I will tell you why the affirmative has won this debate. First, the affirmative's value and criterion have been upheld throughout the debate. Second, my opponent's arguments have been neutralized every time. Last, the affirmative provides for justice, human rights, and moral rightness. For all of these reasons, I stand in absolute affirmation of the resolution. Thank you.

This is personal to me. I was raped by my father when I was 13, and I wanted to gun him so bad, because it was torture. There is a place called torture which is where you go mentally and emotionally when you are tortured. I do not favor current execution methods, but find something humane, and I will. I will finalize with the thought that all torture victims have post traumatic stress disorder, and being condemned to a lifetime of that warrants a humane version of execution.

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.

Your first debate, let the mayhem begin! Just kidding, I am no better at this than you are most likely. Don't let my win ratio fool you. A couple of weeks ago I was 0-27 now as of this posting I am 24-3-1 I am a controversial personality and people mess with my voting record, it is a completely unreliable indicator of my debating skills or is it HMMM. Anywaaaay. Let me start by saying your entire opening argument infers that all forms of public humiliation must include bodily harm. I specifically stated that if you needed examples to make your case I would provide them. Public humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not against the law. "Do not confuse slander with public humiliation" Exhibit (A) All the major tabloids and news outlets publicly humiliate people everyday. They can say what ever they want about anybody without impunity. You can not sue anybody for publicly humiliating you. I can walk up to you in a crowd of people and make fun of you and make rude comments about you and there is nothing you can do about it. Public humiliation is in fact being used in several places around the country right now with very good results. Tents for jail cells in the Arizona desert: http://www.cnn.com... The recidivism rate for the inmates that go through the sheriffs rehabilitation program is 14% verses 60% on the national average. You will note that every single human rights and civil rights group in the country has been unsuccessful at closing it down. So this is proof that public humiliation and harsh living environments are not inhumane as long as they don't cause bodily injury. This judge in Texas makes people where signs, again not unconstitutional with better recidivism rate than national average. http://articles.latimes.com... Only 3 out of 600 people have repeated offenses. "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process? This argument clearly falls." This link explains the vicious cycle that 4 out of every ten people get caught up in starting out as misdemeanor offence in most cases and end up convicted felons because they can't pay the fees associated with it. It is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn people to a life of crime over a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars. http://www.thenation.com... "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process?" The above comment is also addressed in the last link. The legal justice system today is pretty much a business or a corporation theses days. Entire sub businesses are propped up by the legal system. For example: DUI schools, Anger Management Schools, Financial planning schools, Driving schools, they have a school or a class or some sort of councilor for just about anything you can think of. And you have to attend these classes for weeks if not months and the cost of all these things add up: Fines, probation, schools, counseling. The vast majority of the people who have to attend and pay for these things are often indigent to begin with and wind up violating their probation because they can't pay all these fines and fees. Next thing they know they are convicted felons for VOP violations and are given more fines and ordered to more classes and more counseling on top of what they already can't pay for. The vicious cycle begins and a once misdemeanor offence ends up as a felony and the person just gives up and lives it up or runs from the law until the next time they get caught because they now have nothing to lose. "My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls" This comment is addressed by the fact that people who get caught up in the legal system are unable to find employment because they have warrants and such that prohibit any kind of permanent gainful employment forcing them to engage in illegal means to earn or steel money. Public humiliation is a much better option. People 9 times out of ten will choose to pay a fine or go to jail over being publicly humiliated. People choose to pay because public humiliation is just that "public humiliation" I have given numerous examples and statistics to prove that public humiliation of the types presented in my argument are far more effective at detouring repeat offenses than probation or counseling or schools. All these people caught up in the justice system should be publicly humiliated for their original offence and have all the fines and schools and on and on dropped so the person can get back to living. Public humiliation would reduce crime especially if it is used on first time offenders in particular as it will have a lasting and unforgettable deterrence effect.

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

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.

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

"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.

My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you.