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

Should felons who have completed their sentence be granted the right to vote?

Felons who have served their time should be reinstated their voting rights. The question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote has been a topic of debate. Here are some arguments in favor of allowing felons who have completed their sentence to vote:

1. Everyday people's opinions: Many believe that felons should retain their right to vote, as they are still members of society. Denying them a voice is considered inconsiderate and selfish. Just because their views may not align with others, it doesn't mean their right to vote should be stripped.

2. Human rights and fairness: Felons are human beings and should be treated as such. They made a mistake, but they should be given a chance to decide their future upon release. Denying them the right to vote would be unfair and a violation of their human rights.

3. Legal and constitutional bases: Congress has the authority to enfranchise non-incarcerated offenders for federal elections. This is rooted in Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, as well as Congress's enforcement power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.

4. Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act applies to all voting qualifications. Denying the vote to incarcerated felons and felons on parole is considered a disqualification, and this should be subject to scrutiny under the Act.

5. Eighth Amendment: The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive sanctions and demands that punishment should be proportionate to the offense. States that continue to exclude all felons permanently are outliers, both within the United States and globally.

6. Ethical considerations: The argument that allowing prisoners to vote would be costly and impractical is ethically unjustifiable. Denying prisoners the right to vote may undermine respect for the rule of law. Allowing them to vote can strengthen their social ties and commitment to the common good, promoting responsible participation in civil society.

7. Second chances: Offenders who have fully paid their debt to society deserve a second chance. It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to become law-abiding citizens again. Automatic restoration of rights processes can help achieve this.

8. Financial barriers: People should not be barred from voting solely because they are unable to pay back fines, fees, and interest. If the goal is to re-engage individuals with society and promote rehabilitation, the state should do everything possible to re-incorporate them into mainstream

why would you want a prisoner such as a murderer handling a military weapon when you could have a civilian do it? why would you give jobs to a prisoner when a civilian who is way more trust worthy and is in much more need of a job than the prisoner? having them put in a concentration camp is most certainly not the way to go when it comes to offenders of the law. and what would killing the murderer get you? What would that make you? A murderer? why would you stoop to that level of cruelty? That would make you just as convict-able as the guy/ girl you killed wouldn't it? What is killing them going to do? will it make you feel better when you sleep at night? every one deserves another chance. even someone who has killed someone can change. for all you know the person you just killed could have gone to prison and became a christian but now they wont ever have the chance because you wanted to be childish and kill them instead of putting them in jail.

i believe that this is my final rebuttal, so i will present conclusion and voter issues if the opponent wants to do the same. i have infact through out this whole case been trying to say that the jury should judge the law as well as the facts when a case is nullified all cahrges are dropped, like aquit or cleared..you cant nullify someone and still punish them.....besides that goes against your whole argument. "this is not neccessarily harmful." oh no not harmful when people are killed i have only one voter issue and that is that my opponent hasnt proven jury nullification to be a good thing. i feel as though i have proven jury nullification to be a harm to society and to be unjust so i ask everyone to vote negated, thank you

//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.

He instead gave me his straight up thinking of the whole debate and that is sufficent enough I suppose. An addition to that, he did agree with the second condition of the bill; but not so much of the first. Anyway moving on to my why the first part should be approved. I would like to say that the $50,000 annually rule is NOT a random and arbitrary number; it is a stable and reliable number for the wrongly convicted to have. The "proper" procedure that my opponent is trying to propose is not so proper whatsoever; first of all, relying the amount of money the wrongly convicted should get on their previous income is unjust and an irrational thing to do. In the time those people were wrongly convicted, they could of easily gotten a way higher-income job or an education that helped them get to that higher-paying job. Because the government is trying to be just in the process of compensating the wrongly convicted, they should in fact have a stable number like $50,000 per year of imprisionment because it would be equally fair to every single one of them. Creating a compensation based on previous "income before imprisionment" would create an unfair deal because the government doesn't know what that income could of been during those imprisionment years and because of that they should have a stable and reliable number like $50,000. To remind everyone, that money is to get them back on their feet economy wise and to try to live their lifes again; it is an unfortunate situation that I wouldn't wish anyone to go through and because of the posible psychological and mental scars that could come from being wrongly convicted $50,000 per year of inprisionment is a reasonable idea to go with. To base the money given to the wrongly convicted on things before they were imprisioned is unreasonable because it is their past; what we should base it on is the time that they were imprisioned and by creating the compensation of $50,000 per year of imprisionment, the government creates a fair compensation that doesn't base the money given to the wrongly convicted on unjust past ideas like "previous income" or "rate at which their income was increasing up to that point".

I meant to say that while basic punishment is necessary, serving six lifetimes in prison is not any more of a deterrent than one life time, and is overly extreme. What I was trying to say was that extreme penalties are pointless, and that they can, in some cases, be sacrificed for rehabilitation instead. The exception would be if someone of a sane mind committed a serious offence and knew exactly what they were doing. And I would not have you believe that all prisoners do is work out, as I stated earlier, ". .. and although there may be some education systems is some institutions, how good these systems are and whether they are effective in any way is the main question. " I had also said earlier that the prisoners get working opportunities, which is beneficial. For a crime to occur, there must be two things, the actus reus - meaning the act - and the mens rea - "the guilty mind". So in some cases where a crime is committed, the person doesn't know what's going on at the time because of their mental condition. And although punishment is necessary, it can also be unfair, people not of right mental states shouldn't just be convicted of life in prison, it is not their fault they are mentally unstable. In Canada, there is a case of a man who had gotten drunk and lost his two daughters in a blizzard (. http://news.therecord.com...), but in this case, he admitted what he did was wrong and that had a problem and pleaded guilty. The man had the option of a sentencing circle (. http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...), where the community, the man, a judge and a policeman have the chance to suggest what to be done with the accused. In this case, the citizens of the circle wanted the man to stay in the community and do community service and be rehabilitated in the community, take alcoholics anonymous, etc. The judge ignored the opinions of the sentencing circle and gave him three years in prison. I think that the man, since admitting his mistakes and wanting to improve himself as a person, should have stayed in the community. That way he could make noticeable progress and have to face the people in the community with shame and work to make those relationships better. In prison, the rehabilitation programs probably are not as extensive as the ones set up in the community, nor as personal. Another case is of a man who was on a greyhound bus and stabbed another man while the passengers and drivers were escaping the bus. The man was locked on the bus and he decapitated the other young man that was stabbed earlier, killing him. While what he did was clearly wrong, he was a schizophrenic and thought that the voice of god was talking to him, telling him the young man was a demon going to kill him. Last I heard, the case is yet to be resolved but I think that the man shouldn't be sent to life in prison, he should be put into a mental institution, and go through intense therapy. The chances of the man ever being stabilized is slim, but at least if there is a medical advancement and he is mentally stable, he can be introduced back into society instead of being forgotten about and wasting away in prison. So in conclusion, after fixing a flawed resolution, rehabilitation should be given to people in place of severe punishments. We should work to help and fix people who are unstable or going through a hard time in their life and made a mistake. Why can't we "sacrifice punishment for more rehab programs"?

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?

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).

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

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...

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


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

You Decide on the Issue!
I hold the view that individuals shouldn’t be penalized indefinitely, but rather face alternative consequences, such as the suspension of voting rights. From an ethical standpoint, I believe in restricting certain privileges. Not the fundamental rights that everyone should have, but those that should only be granted to those who have earned them. Furthermore, I personally don’t want individuals with a criminal background to have a say in our democracy. Often, felons may lack a sound moral compass or clear judgment. They might be driven by self-interest or lack basic ethical principles. It’s only after they commit a serious crime that their true nature is revealed. While this reasoning alone isn’t enough to justify denying felons the right to vote, it does contribute to the debate.

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

People who vote. I do not mean to be a bad sport but I could not hep in Internet terms "Lol" at your anugment. People who bullie people online are called "trolls" This is different from a "hacker" We are talking about hacking here NOT cyber bullying your off topic! But I keep with it one girl killed herself and their was no hacking involved. It was purely trolling her to suicide. No one has ever killed them self because they got hacked. Once again we are talking about hacking its self not cyber bullying! Up to you voters send a skilled person to jail because he want to show the world what he could do but did not know the right way of doing it? remember federal offence is five years of light that kid will not see!

If you denied all who revoked the basic rights of man the basic rights of man then, 1 you're being a hypocrite as you're doing just that, and 2 you leaving what these rights are to whom exactly? Yourself? Then hello Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin to the twenty first century and the internet. Stop and think if you deny the most basic of rights what makes you better then them, you devalue the idea of inalienable to mean for my people when convenvent.

Yes because it is just and prevents those rapists and terrible criminals from further harming our society

So one day I was just sitting at my desk, masturbating, when I realized that there is no legal precedent for incarcerating conjoined twins when one of them (but not the other) has committed a crime. Consider the following: Harold and Stephen are conjoined twins. They are in a public park, when Harold pulls out a gun and shoots five people, despite Stephens efforts to stop him. The conjoined twins are arrested; Harold tells authorities he simply hates people and wishes to harm as many individuals as he can. Stephen is horrified by Harolds' dark nature, but is, unfortunately, physically attached to him. Harold is now a killer, and he expresses his intent to murder innocents again. The resolution is the following: This House would incarcerate Harold and Stephen I support this resolution, I will argue that a legal individual should have their rights sacrificed in order to assure that Harold is put behind bars. Con will argue that a legal individuals' rights cannot be compromised despite this drastic situation.

1 clarification; by psychos I mean Hitler/Stalin like genocidal maniacs, and there followers, to reference the dark knight saga the sons of batman. 2 If you say that all people violate human rights lose there inalienable rights , witch is by definition contradictory, then you are a hypocrite, then under the assumption that you are democratically elected then the people by backing you and by not impeaching they are aiding and abetting the crime, thus you are guilty thus you are punished thus you are proposing martial law.

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.

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

Many people have committed horrible crimes and have come to repent and make a positive difference in our world. Every person deserves the chance to repent and to be able to have a life. The death penalty takes that chance away. My regards to my opponent. Please vote for Peacetotheworld

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.


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

Should individuals who have been convicted of a felony and have served their sentence be granted the right to vote?

The argument in favor of allowing felons to vote after they have completed their sentence is rooted in the belief that they have paid their debt to society and should be granted the full rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. Just as teenagers who work and pay taxes should have a say in the government that taxes them, felons who have served their time and are contributing to society should also have a voice in the political process. The First Amendment rights to free speech and redress of grievances are not exclusive to adults, and the idea of taxation without representation is a form of oppression. As a society that values freedom and justice, we should not deny the right to vote to those who have served their time and are seeking to reintegrate into society. Peace.

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

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

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

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

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.

can you quote a source for your definition of crime or is this :"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. " just your belifes? because according to oxford, the definition of crime is : " An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction", that is my definition of crime ,different from mine, no doubt. and it doesnt necessarily have to be a prison sentence, in some cases it is a mear fine. this point, makes no sence, i am aware that you are in affirmation of jury nullification, but since the jury do make the decision and not the judge jury nullification is a useless act : "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" " 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" really, can you back this point up, yes i understand the oj simpson case, but the resolution nor any of the sites that i have checked state any limit to how jury nullification can be used. as for this point, i already explained that if some one commits a crime that they deserve to be punished, their case should not have been nullified in the first place. "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." and your point about it not being a danger to society, if harm is caused by it then it is a danger to society, and using the scenario that i used then those two people died didnt they? what does keeping the government in check even mean? jury nullification would be keeping the judge in check, not the government.

P1: Event though some prisoners may take advantage of federal, state assistant to help them reintegrate into communities, others will use this as a means to commit more otracities and destroy the community. As said before prisons usually turn felons into better criminals and sometimes it is just hard to break out a lifestyle that is too well known. P2: While their are criminals who face minor drug charges and nonviolent offenses everybody should be seen as equal behind bars . For those who committed more serious offenses should be put in maximum confinement and in this way you could spread the face. P3: Crowding may cause tension however with more Correction officer and security their should be ways to suppress violence within prison

=Rebuttal=Thank's for the response Pro, I must say your case is quite fascinating.I'll now go down my Opponents case and refute it.He begins with Thomas Jeffersons famous quote about Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. He claims that this supports his side. It does not, because the right to liberty is also secured. Merriam-Webster provides 5 relevant definitions of Liberty, all of which are violated both in life w/o parole, and with my Opponents new system. The definition of liberty I will bring in is "the power to do as one pleases". It's self explanatory how life w/o parole and my Opponents system violates this.Pursuit of happiness is a little more obscure, but I think we can assume that forcing a prisoner to do involuntary labor does not fall under their idea of "pursuit of happiness". So unless my Opponent wishes to advocate the abolition of punishment, this quote does not support his side.C1.My Opponent gives himself quite the burden of proof with this contention. Not only must he show this system to be beneficial, he must also show it to be possible. Right now, the likelihood of my Opponent's system being enacted after the abolition of Capital Punishment seems slim to none. He spends his entire contention touting the benefits of this, however if this system won't be implemented, than those benefits disappear! However now, without further ado, I will point out the flaws in his system.--> Cost. Pro claims that in such a system: "the criminal could be forced to work until the damages he caused were repaid." Ok, first of all in our current system prisoners often do work, however he himself has shown their existence to be burdensome. Pro claims that there is a historical precedent of this, and if so I would like to see an example of this being cost beneficial, which he has yet to provide. Unless he is advocating having the prisoners work OUTSIDE the prison, which leads me to my next point.--> Danger. This could provide an avenue for prisoners to escape. There is a historical precedent to this, look at Massachusetts disastrous prison furlough program. I'll provide an example, Willie Horton a convicted murderer (serving a sentence of life without parole no less) was allowed to work outside his prisons walls and, predictably, escaped and committed assault, armed robbery, and raped a woman in front of her fiancee (after pistol whipping and knifing the man).[1] So things like this would happen in my Opponents system. He could easily say that the prisoners would be well guarded, and this supports my Cost objection.--> No point, while it sounds great in principle to have murderers pay their debt to society, we also happen to have a 9.2% unemployement rate[2]. Why not have our honest, unemployed, citizens do these jobs? (*note, Pro still has not even explained what these jobs would be.) And if our citizens don't want these jobs, why not give them to impoverished guest workers from foreign countries? Surely they deserve work far more than a prisoner ever will, and would actually contribute to our society other than to "pay off their debts". This would also most likely be more cost effective.--> Also, how are we even going to force the prisoners to work? If they don't want to are we going to use force? Not only would that make them most likely do a sub-standard job, but it would also cause them to nurse a vendetta against a particular guard, or even guards in general. So this adds to my danger objection I suppose.--> Maybe when assessing this system, we should look to more historical precedents such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both of these countries had extensive prison labor systems. Do we aspire to be like these countries?--> Final objection, slavery. Here's my Opponents exact words describing his system. "His victim's heir would inherit the murderer's life". Definition of a slave: "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them". So basically, we are recklessly making slaves of convicted killers, despite the danger shown to us through history, and forcing them to do labor that is most likely not even cost effective rather than doing the safe thing, and executing them.Furthermore, if for some reason this Contention still seems to stand, we must remember that unless my Opponent shows this as likely to happen after the abolition of the Death Penalty, it does not support his side what so ever. An interesting idea no doubt, but not one that is likely to happen in our system. (He even states in cross examination that the historical precendent for this lies in civil law societies. We are a common law society, so the likelihood of this happening is slim to none.)C2.Rather than argue for himself, Pro links several sources, not even quoting them. This is enormously unfair to me, because I can hardly be expected to look through his sources and argue against everything in them. However, I will respond to his statements anyway.--> The Death Penalty is not ineffective, the recidivism rate for murderers is 1.2% (within three years, only counting the ones who were caught mind you). The recidivism rate for executed offenders is 0%. That is effective.--> The death penalty is hardly corrupt, considering the massive amounts of attention and scrutiny each Capital case brings. Trials for life without parole have no where near the amount of coverage as capital trials do, so TURN: corruption would logically increase with the abolition of the Death Penalty. And even if it WAS corrupt, that would show how deep corruption goes in our criminal justice system, and unless we wish to abolish that this point has no solvency. Also, to think that my Opponents proposal of slave labor is anything but a system extremely liable to corruption, is absurd.--> Pro claims a wrongful execution to be a "frequent occurrence". I challenge my Opponent to provide a single example of an executed murderer who was later found to be innocent. He may link me to some websites claiming innocence, but they are hardly qualified to make such an analysis on guilt or innocence. Thank you so much for accepting this challenge, and thank you for an extremely thought provoking response.Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.bls.gov...

First what is justice?Justice: http://oxforddictionaries.com... [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the Supreme Court of a country or state. Really it is clear that the focus of it is on treating the criminal as they deserve.Now here is the key difference between retribution and rehabilitation.What is retribution? It is punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act. http://oxforddictionaries.com...What is rehabilitation? It is to restore (someone) to health or normal life by training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Clearly the first concern is the punishment's nature. The nature of punishment in most civilised societies is imprisonment with the only variable to consider being the time for which it should last and this is often determined in the case whereby two barristers must advocate either for or in defence of the guilt of the accused. Here they primarily debate over whether or not the crime was committed. Then if the defence lawyer begins to accept it was committed they then debate over the exact nature of the committed crime to try and get their client as low a sentence as possible. Nowhere here is rehabilitation the issue.Rehabilitation is something that a non-criminal should be worried about BEFORE they do a crime. If this person has not been rehabilitated and then does a crime, a crime is a crime and justice will be served. That is all.

"i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free. " Ok, let's be fair here. I meant nothing negative when I questioned the phrase my opponent used. I also don't think I would've been the only one who assumed that. If I offended any voters, I apologize. However, I was simply asking my opponent if it was intended to be racial. So, I don't think it's necessary to dock conduct points from me. "it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one? " No, I don't think that one hundred percent of people that are denied guns will get one, but when you think about it, it's much closer to one hundred than zero. Even if a law abiding citizen was denied a gun, he or she would be outraged. Now make that proportional to a criminal. The criminal will clearly go to the black market. I don't know why my opponent is denying this. It's common sense. "and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun. " This is true, but it isn't directly related to what my opponent was talking about in that particular paragraph. Also, if someone without a gun gets into trouble, they will most likely lose to the person with a gun. "most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record" My opponent clearly has good intentions, but he's missing the point that you can't use the law to stop criminals. Rather, it doesn't work. Criminals that intend people will do it unless they are stopped by citizens or law enforcement. This is why we should have armed police officers in every school. After the Aurora movie theatre shooting, a law passed in a Colorado to have armed police officers in every movie theatre in the state. Also, regarding my opponent's argument above, background checks would be a major inconvenience to law abiding citizens. . http://www.cnn.com... "there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed. " I doubt it's very recent. School has been out for about two months in most states. Secondly, please provide a source for this because I never saw this on the news. "the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed. " The case is hardly closed. I have one or two arguments that I have made continuously throughout the debate. The reason for this is that my opponent doesn't seem to understand my logic. Pro has used the same arguments excessively as well. "con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave. " See what I mean? Pro used this in rounds two and three. I have already argued against this exact argument in round two. "and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post. .. . harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas. .. it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that. " I apologize to my opponent. For he did give certain studies. What I meant to say is that these studies are very generalized.


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

You have the power to decide!
2. Ex-felons should regain their voting rights. It's essential for individuals to understand the repercussions of their actions, which often include penalties. Felonies are significant offenses, and there are indeed consequences for one's behavior. My stance: Former felons, upon completing their sentences, should be permitted to vote again. This approach acknowledges their reintegration into society and respects their civic rights.

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

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.

By making this debate, you choose to vote. Note that votes must examine arguments made by both debaters. Vote for the one you think has the better arguments, and say what arguments convinced you, and what arguments of the other guy failed. But by making this debate, I fear you aren't capable of making sufficient votes. (It's not that hard. Just examine specific arguments made. )

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.

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

It appears my opponent has conceded. As my opponent was unwilling or unable to refute the stat of 25% recidivism for federal inmates, it is evident the status quo works. 25% is better than ANY study Pro stated a change in the system would yield. You must vote Con. The Dallas study that is Pro’s model has success in its initial batch of subjects, but that is irrelevant. Even if we used Pro’s worst statistic of 49% recidivism, if we randomly chose one-third of the inmates at random, the recidivism rate would be expected to be 16.2% (8.3% if Con’s stat is used). If we individually selected them on based on their chance to succeed, it would logically be a better rate. This is what Dallas did. This is evidenced by its expansion of 80 higher risk clients, which had a failure rate of 18.8%, which is worse than a random batch of federal inmates, and even worse when compared to Texas’ statewide recidivism rates. Therefore, the Dallas system is flawed and should not be implemented at the federal level. Even if there are savings to the prisons by implementing this plan, since the recidivism rate would be higher, there will be more risk to the community and higher costs to law enforcement and the judicial system as a result; this is counter-productive to the purpose of the criminal justice system, as stated by Pro. Therefore, the status quo is the best course of action, as it yields the best protection to the community from released prisoners.

Since this is my closing speech, instead of doing a line-by-line response to your argument, I will present 3 reasons voters should vote for me. First, humanity. By voting Pro, readers will affirm the universality of humanity and reject a world based on demonization and fear. Sex offenders are human, just as the Jews and the blacks were, and deserve our concern. We must treat them equitably: we cannot murder them to preserve our toenails, so to speak. If a punishment imposes a monstrous harm on them for the sake of a minute benefit to society, we should abolish such a punishment. If a punishment upon them is unfair when compared to punishments for other crimes, then we must abolish the punishment. If a punishment is applied indiscriminately to people who pee publicly and serial rapists, then we must abolish the punishment. You will recognize that someone peeing in the gutter is doing a wrong thing by not exercising self-control, but that the punishment should still fit the crime. Second, the safety of the sex offenders themselves. This point ties into my first: sex offender registries encourage vigilantism. Gossip alone would be incapable of fuelling equal levels of vigilantism, because gossip would be unable to discover accurate details about the addresses of the sex offenders (especially if they change location), physical descriptions of the offenders, or perhaps even their names. Such details are necessary for vigilantes to locate their targets. By voting Pro, you will condemn and discourage vigilantism as unlawful and unjust. Third, public safety. By voting Pro you are recognizing that the rehabilitation of sex offenders would benefit society , and that sex offender registries prevent rehabilitation. You will allow sex offenders the chance to get homes, friends and jobs, and a second chance to create a constructive life. You will encourage them to seek therapy as soon as possible (which sex offenders often fail to do, despite Con's assertion that they "should" do so). Thus you will prevent offenders from succumbing to the self-fulfilling prophesy and from COMMITTING FURTHER SEX CRIMES, ironically, because of the registries. These benefits from Pro far outweigh the minimalist benefit of useless hope from registries that Con is claiming. Remember, Con has conceded that the effectiveness of registries is empirically denied. Con only claims that the lists provide parents with a useless sense of security and control; useless hope pales compared to humanity, offender safety, and public safety. "And just answer this: If a sex offender were living by you, would you want to know? " Instinctively, yes; but after applying logic to the issue, I would see that knowledge about sex offenders in the proximity is largely ineffective and even counter-productive, and that it engenders many social harms. And I hope that all rational people, who can overlook their immediate emotional response, will agree with me.

1. The jury is forced to do this because of the government. 2. Plea bargaining - some people plea bargain and are then found innocent 3. Sometimes there is no good evidence, but a trial still happens Sometimes there is false evidence or evidence planted by others Sometimes there is more recent evidence found after the conviction 4. It is wrong to unjustly waste someones years away and then not compensate them for their pain and suffering 5. After getting out of jail finding a job and getting money is difficult. These people need the money to restart their lives, the ones that the government ruined. 6. System is as fair as possible but that has nothing to do with this debate, they make mistakes. A person DESERVES just compensation because years of their life have been filled with pain and suffering in our jail systems. Even a year inside of a jail cell can give you psycological and physical ailments for the rest of your life.

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

It didn't come out until the last round, but Pro's argument for rehabilitation is circular. She has been arguing for rehabilitation by appealing to utilitarian morals. But why does she subscribe to utilitarian morals? In her own words: "By rehabilitating people, we are creating a better society, which is why I chose utilitarianism as my value. " So she chooses utilitarian values because rehabilitating people creates a better society, and she thinks rehabilitation is better than retribution because of her utilitarian values. It is hard to come up with a more clear example of circular reasoning. The only non-circular defense she gives for utilitarianism is its simplicity. But this is no defense. How does it follow that because utilitarianism is simple that it's therefore true? And I would question whether it really is simple. It sounds simple until you actually try to apply it to real world decisions. Then you've got to weigh utilities, which can be highly subjective. That's not to mention the difficulty of predicting the short term and long term consequences of a course of action. Pro's only response to my elderly people counter-example to utilitarianism is that it's "simple-minded" and "unrealistic. " But the fact of the matter is, there are old people who are a drain on society. I'm not saying that I personally would want to kill them. As I said in the first round, that would obviously be wrong. What I'm saying is that it follows from utilitarianism that there are innocent people we ought to kill for the good of society. That's precisely what's wrong with utilitarianism! There are many without close family who we could kill without causing any (or many people) grief, too. They don't need funerals. We can just have them cremated, which is cheaper than paying their medical expenses. Pro is being a bit inconsistent in this debate. In the first round, she defined retribution as "punishment that is justly deserved. " Giving people what they deserve is the very meaning of fairness. Yet she claims that (1) under rehabilitation, people get what they deserve, and (2) retribution is unfair. I agree with her that sometimes people are given punishments that they don't deserve. That is the basis upon which she says retribution is unfair, but that is contrary to how she defined retribution since she defined it as giving people the punishment they deserve. When people get a punishment that goes beyond what they deserve, that isn't retribution. That's going beyond retribution, and I don't think either one of us is advocating that. Pro still seems to misunderstand my argument from fairness. She says, "My opponent continually goes back to the argument that punishment won't be dealt fairly and harsh crimes like rape will be let off easy. " My concern isn't that harsh crimes like rape will be let off easy. My concern is that under rehabilitation, the punishment does not have to fit the crime. I used rape and drug abuse as hypothetical examples to illustrate my point. If the primary focus is on rehabilitation rather than retribution, then the length of imprisonment, punishment, sentence, or whatever is done to the person will depend on the psychology of the person and how long it takes or what measures it takes to rehabilitate the person rather than on what the person deserves. If (emphasis on the 'if) it happens that some severe crime, like rape, is easier to rehabilitate than some lesser crime, like drug abuse, then the person guilty of drug use will suffer more severely than the person who commited rape, which is unfair. Fairness dictates that the punishment fit the crime. And that is precisely the purpose of the 8th amendment. A cruel and unusual punishment is a punishment that does not fit the crime but rather goes beyond it. I misunderstood what Pro meant by "cards. " Apparently, she was just quoting what she had originally quoted in the first round in support of rehabilitation. My objection stands. The quote says nothing about rehabilitation. Pro emphasizes the use of the word "results," but the benefits it mentions are not the rehabilitation of the person, but redemption of America's image abroad, restoration of communities who regard prison as a rite of passage (whatever that means), and the enablement of offenders to pay restitution to their victims. Even if this quote mentioned retribution, it's just an opinion piece. It doesn't offer an argument. Sending dangerous criminals to prison is not rehabilitation; it's protection. Pro seems to be all for that. She said, "Again I will say, criminals such as murderers and sexual offenders will be put in prison as a safety precaution. " She apparently only advocates rehabilitation for lesser crimes, like drug abuse and traffic offenses. But remember the resolution of the debate: "Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system. " That resolution is more general and sweeping than, "Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in cases of miner crimes, like drug abuse and traffic violations. "Pro was unable to defend her second contention. After I pointed out that her quote only showed a correlation between parents going to prison and their kids dropping out of school, and even offering an alternate explanation than one causing the other, her only response is to use the words "clear" and "pretty clear" in regard to causation. That's not an argument. That's only an expression of Pro's conviction. The quote she offered as evidence did not show causation, and neither did Pro. They only showed correlation and asserted causation. Adding the word "clearly" to what you already said before doesn't advance your argument. Pro claims that she is "very anti-retribution," but then turns around in the next paragraph and says under rehabilitation, people will "get what they deserve. " This is an inconsistency since giving people what they deserve is how she defined retribution in the first round. If she is all for people getting what they deserve, then she is all for retribution since that's what retribution means. If she is not all for people getting what they deserve, then she has not adequately responded to my fairness objection. Either way, Pro has not carried her burden of proof in this debate. I said at the beginning of this debate that I'd concede if Pro convinced me, but she hasn't. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Thank you for reading it.