Lincoln-Douglas January/February Topic
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict
Public Forum January Topic
Resolved: Development assistance should be prioritized over military aid in the Sahel region of Africa
Showing posts with label January. Show all posts
Showing posts with label January. Show all posts
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
LD help
There are a couple of aspects to look at with this current LD topic, Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.
The pragmatic approach (utilitarianism view) and the moral view need to be examined. To give you some insight into what's currently going on in this debate look at the following articles:
This one
and this one
Hope they help
The pragmatic approach (utilitarianism view) and the moral view need to be examined. To give you some insight into what's currently going on in this debate look at the following articles:
This one
and this one
Hope they help
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Who is Citizens United? Depends on who you ask...
So while researching the FEC is as painfully boring as waiting for a class to finish a standardized test, Citizens United is a little more interesting, mainly because of its partisan nature.
There are two things to examine:
1. What is CU's mission?
2. Who is David Bossie (CU's President and Chairman of the Board)
You don't have to do much researching to conclude that it's the Conservative's answer to Michael Moore. For what it's worth, they both have imdb profiles:
Michael Moore's imdb profile
David Bossie's imdb profile
One look at Bossie's "headshot" on imdb and he looks like Salesman of the Month at your local car dealership. Here is Citizens United homepage:
What CU is
And here is why people criticize them:
Liberals Hatin' on CU
It is worth noting that the criticism is partisan (Liberals hate them - Conservatives defend them). And when you read the article you should probably do a quick search on the Koch Brothers, who they are linked to.
Or you could read this. You're welcome.
(Disclaimer: There are a handful of spelling/grammatical errors in the above article. Apparently the desire to bash the Koch Brothers and CU overwhelmed the desire spell-check and proofread.)
There are two things to examine:
1. What is CU's mission?
2. Who is David Bossie (CU's President and Chairman of the Board)
You don't have to do much researching to conclude that it's the Conservative's answer to Michael Moore. For what it's worth, they both have imdb profiles:
Michael Moore's imdb profile
David Bossie's imdb profile
One look at Bossie's "headshot" on imdb and he looks like Salesman of the Month at your local car dealership. Here is Citizens United homepage:
What CU is
And here is why people criticize them:
Liberals Hatin' on CU
It is worth noting that the criticism is partisan (Liberals hate them - Conservatives defend them). And when you read the article you should probably do a quick search on the Koch Brothers, who they are linked to.
Or you could read this. You're welcome.
(Disclaimer: There are a handful of spelling/grammatical errors in the above article. Apparently the desire to bash the Koch Brothers and CU overwhelmed the desire spell-check and proofread.)
The FEC: Six People You Meet and Could Care Less About
With the Federal Election Commission being involved in the January PF topic, I looked into what the FEC does and who's involved. What I found was intriguing..said no one ever. I hate to sound cynical and it's important for debaters to understand the Who, Why, etc. regarding the FEC, but beyond a basic understanding of what function it serves there's very little controversy. Here's the link:
FEC
FEC
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Jan. PF Analysis
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election
process.
Please make sure you understand how propositions of fact work before you read this. You should read the post a couple of posts back. You did? Awesome. Let's continue.
"On balance" sometimes confuses people. I think in all PF debates both sides concede that their opponents have some good arguments, but that OVERALL their own side is correct. "On balance" simply makes sure you understand that you're going to HAVE to concede that your opponents arguments have some merit, but that your side OUTWEIGHS the other. One way to think of it is that "On balance" is a synonym for "Overall."
Taking what you remember from propositions of fact, you can see that "the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" is A, "harms" is the verb, and "the election process" is B. A solid understanding of what the Supreme Court decision entails is important. This is pretty objective since the Supreme Court offers opinions on both sides of the issue which outline why they individually ruled how they did. What I think is a little more elusive to define is "the election process." What is this process? Is it the campaigning? Is it the mudslinging? Is it the actual voting and does that include the information that voters receive to deliberate on who they should vote for? Keep in mind, this debate involves federal offices, not state or local offices.
One other aspect to keep in mind is that the overwhelming support for the decision came from Republicans, with the majority of Democrats (including Barack Obama) being very critical of the decision. Just puttin' that out there...
Once you have solid definitions for "A," "harms," and "B" you can move into arguments for PRO and CON.
PRO
If the election process is as simple as people making informed decisions on how they vote, then any propaganda out there that might mislead voters will taint their decisions. Movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2016: Obama's America are intended to sway voter opinion. At the most, these movies should stir debate and force people to do their own research. But few people have the time/discipline to do that and will just think "Michael Moore said..." or "The Obama movie said..." and go with that. There's a huge difference between an ignorant electorate and a misinformed electorate and the latter is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than the former. You want to show that the decision of the Supreme Court has and can continue to lead to a misinformed electorate, thus harming the electoral process.
Another avenue for the PRO to explore is the "equal time" issue. As debaters, you definitely understand that both sides deserve equal time. Rioting in your debate round would ensue if your judge screwed up your time and gave your opponents more time than they were supposed to receive (I know that's happened to some of you and you know how badly it stinks). The same holds true for the supporters of the two political parties in the country. One Super PAC has the resources that another doesn't and is therefore able to promote its agenda more effectively. For more about equal time look at the first PF topic I ever tackled in my job as Lanier Debate coach: The Fairness Doctrine, Sept. 2007.
One last issue for PRO is idea that a corporation is not afforded the same rights as an individual. When a company winds up poisoning people and they are successfully sued their penalty is to pay out settlements. However, if an individual (through their own negligence) poisons people then they are going to jail. The law makes a distinction between individuals and companies run by individuals. But corporations are NOT individual citizens and therefore what rights do they have? Do corporations have a right to free speech? What if there are films financed by corporations or non-profits with foreign ties and investments?
CON
As much as PRO might be the majority opinion among debaters (at least that's my first impression) CON has some very good arguments to make.
First and foremost is that the decision of the court allows for more free speech. These films, for example, don't commit slander (legal definition: slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed) In fact they are carefully orchestrated to go just far enough in encouraging the viewer make assumptions based on the facts that are presented in a certain way. Moore's and D'Souza's films are criticized for not being true documentaries because they are made with a political agenda in mind. However, a LOT of Hollywood films are produced with a political/social agenda in mind. Are all film-makers bound by Feingold-McCain? By restricting their release are you violating their free speech, not to mention free enterprise (not that documentary filmmakers are millionaires but they still need to eat).
Another point for the CON to utilize is the fact that this decision is in line with what a lot of media is able to do. Days before an election, it's perfectly legal for a major/minor newspaper to editorialize about who they endorse for office. It's almost an obligation. How can that be okay, yet non-profit groups and corporations alike would be rendered silent if the decision was reversed? Moreover, how much more harmful are journalistic endorsements of candidates than non-profit/corporate films?
I realize I've given 3 PRO's and 2 CON's. Sorry to those of you concerned with quantity over quality. I feel the CON free speech point can probably be broken down into a couple of sub-points. And with all topics and analysis I offer - Please do your own research.
Please make sure you understand how propositions of fact work before you read this. You should read the post a couple of posts back. You did? Awesome. Let's continue.
"On balance" sometimes confuses people. I think in all PF debates both sides concede that their opponents have some good arguments, but that OVERALL their own side is correct. "On balance" simply makes sure you understand that you're going to HAVE to concede that your opponents arguments have some merit, but that your side OUTWEIGHS the other. One way to think of it is that "On balance" is a synonym for "Overall."
Taking what you remember from propositions of fact, you can see that "the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" is A, "harms" is the verb, and "the election process" is B. A solid understanding of what the Supreme Court decision entails is important. This is pretty objective since the Supreme Court offers opinions on both sides of the issue which outline why they individually ruled how they did. What I think is a little more elusive to define is "the election process." What is this process? Is it the campaigning? Is it the mudslinging? Is it the actual voting and does that include the information that voters receive to deliberate on who they should vote for? Keep in mind, this debate involves federal offices, not state or local offices.
One other aspect to keep in mind is that the overwhelming support for the decision came from Republicans, with the majority of Democrats (including Barack Obama) being very critical of the decision. Just puttin' that out there...
Once you have solid definitions for "A," "harms," and "B" you can move into arguments for PRO and CON.
PRO
If the election process is as simple as people making informed decisions on how they vote, then any propaganda out there that might mislead voters will taint their decisions. Movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2016: Obama's America are intended to sway voter opinion. At the most, these movies should stir debate and force people to do their own research. But few people have the time/discipline to do that and will just think "Michael Moore said..." or "The Obama movie said..." and go with that. There's a huge difference between an ignorant electorate and a misinformed electorate and the latter is just as dangerous if not more dangerous than the former. You want to show that the decision of the Supreme Court has and can continue to lead to a misinformed electorate, thus harming the electoral process.
Another avenue for the PRO to explore is the "equal time" issue. As debaters, you definitely understand that both sides deserve equal time. Rioting in your debate round would ensue if your judge screwed up your time and gave your opponents more time than they were supposed to receive (I know that's happened to some of you and you know how badly it stinks). The same holds true for the supporters of the two political parties in the country. One Super PAC has the resources that another doesn't and is therefore able to promote its agenda more effectively. For more about equal time look at the first PF topic I ever tackled in my job as Lanier Debate coach: The Fairness Doctrine, Sept. 2007.
One last issue for PRO is idea that a corporation is not afforded the same rights as an individual. When a company winds up poisoning people and they are successfully sued their penalty is to pay out settlements. However, if an individual (through their own negligence) poisons people then they are going to jail. The law makes a distinction between individuals and companies run by individuals. But corporations are NOT individual citizens and therefore what rights do they have? Do corporations have a right to free speech? What if there are films financed by corporations or non-profits with foreign ties and investments?
CON
As much as PRO might be the majority opinion among debaters (at least that's my first impression) CON has some very good arguments to make.
First and foremost is that the decision of the court allows for more free speech. These films, for example, don't commit slander (legal definition: slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed) In fact they are carefully orchestrated to go just far enough in encouraging the viewer make assumptions based on the facts that are presented in a certain way. Moore's and D'Souza's films are criticized for not being true documentaries because they are made with a political agenda in mind. However, a LOT of Hollywood films are produced with a political/social agenda in mind. Are all film-makers bound by Feingold-McCain? By restricting their release are you violating their free speech, not to mention free enterprise (not that documentary filmmakers are millionaires but they still need to eat).
Another point for the CON to utilize is the fact that this decision is in line with what a lot of media is able to do. Days before an election, it's perfectly legal for a major/minor newspaper to editorialize about who they endorse for office. It's almost an obligation. How can that be okay, yet non-profit groups and corporations alike would be rendered silent if the decision was reversed? Moreover, how much more harmful are journalistic endorsements of candidates than non-profit/corporate films?
I realize I've given 3 PRO's and 2 CON's. Sorry to those of you concerned with quantity over quality. I feel the CON free speech point can probably be broken down into a couple of sub-points. And with all topics and analysis I offer - Please do your own research.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Jan. PF link to Nats 2010 PF topic
Here's the topic for January, 2013: Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
And this was the topic for Nationals in 2010: Resolved: Current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberation.
One way to paraphrase the Nats 2010 topic: Partisan propaganda does harm to the democratic process.
A lot of PF topics get recycled and this, in my opinion, is one that has been recycled with the specification that we are not looking at current trends in general but specifically at CU v FEC, and the impact it has had on our electoral process (which happens to function within a democracy).
I'm not stating that these topics are similar enough to find cases from June 2010 and run with them, BUT if you do some internet digging you can probably find some back-files from that topic that can help with the current topic. Oh wait...I did that for you.
courtesy of Harrisburgh Debate
And this was the topic for Nationals in 2010: Resolved: Current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberation.
One way to paraphrase the Nats 2010 topic: Partisan propaganda does harm to the democratic process.
A lot of PF topics get recycled and this, in my opinion, is one that has been recycled with the specification that we are not looking at current trends in general but specifically at CU v FEC, and the impact it has had on our electoral process (which happens to function within a democracy).
I'm not stating that these topics are similar enough to find cases from June 2010 and run with them, BUT if you do some internet digging you can probably find some back-files from that topic that can help with the current topic. Oh wait...I did that for you.
courtesy of Harrisburgh Debate
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Jan. PF Topic Analysis
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
First off, it's been a while since we've seen an "On balance..." topic. (April 2010 - Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States.) This is another proposition of fact (A has this impact on B). I personally dislike these topics. While we haven't had an "On balance" topic we've had A LOT of propositions of fact. But before I go over that, let's take a quick trip through CU v FEC.
In June of 2004, controversial documentary filmmaker Michael Moore released a film titled Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature where freedom burns (clever, huh?) Moore is no friend of conservatives and this film focused on President Bush's activity before, during and after the attacks even going so far as to assert that 9/11 was an inside job. (These conspiracy theorists are referred to ironically as 'truthers.') Whatever your opinion on the matter, what was clear was that Moore's goals with the film were to influence the upcoming 2004 election between President Bush and Senator John Kerry. It apparently didn't work.
Citizens United is a non-profit conservative advocacy group. They protested that the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 prior to the election violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA") This act prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Citizens United's challenge of the film's release with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was dismissed. So CU's response was basically "Okay. If liberals like Michael Moore can do it, we can, too." So they released a film in early 2008 called Hillary: The Movie to be released on DirecTV. This film was highly critical of then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The advertisements for the film ran before the Democratic Primary, which caused the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to claim the film violated the boundaries set by BCRA. Citizens United appealed the decision to the Supreme Court (which by this time had been restocked with Conservative leaning President Bush picks). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.
A constitutional attorney would be helpful at this point as I've basically summed up what Wikipedia has to offer on the subject (don't worry - I corroborated with other sources). If you were able to follow the two previous paragraphs then you might look at the Supreme Court decision and conclude that they sort of had to rule in favor of CU and the airing of their conservative film since the FEC had allowed Michael Moore's liberal film. Denying CU's appeal would lead people to think there was a partisan double standard - liberals can do this but conservatives can't.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has opened the door to all sorts of "propaganda." Consider the film 2016: Obama's America. This was released the year of Obama's re-election campaign and argues that President Obama wants to reduce significantly the U.S.'s influence within the world while increasing the influence of nations that he believes have suffered or been held back economically or militarily due to U.S. and Western domination. Overall, it's a very negative portrayal of the President. I haven't seen the film so I won't comment on it, but just like Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll assume it runs with some basic facts and then gives you a very biased picture of what the filmmaker believes is the "truth." Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision regarding CU vs. FEC, Obama supporters had little recourse but to let the film be released. Much like Fahrenheit 9/11, it apparently had little effect on the election.
This is really just the back-story. As Shakespeare wrote, "What is past is prologue." In future posts I'll go over the way to go about analyzing propositions of fact and some basic PRO and CON approaches. As with all topics, I highly recommend you do some research on your own. I've only provided the "children's dictionary" set-up.
First off, it's been a while since we've seen an "On balance..." topic. (April 2010 - Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States.) This is another proposition of fact (A has this impact on B). I personally dislike these topics. While we haven't had an "On balance" topic we've had A LOT of propositions of fact. But before I go over that, let's take a quick trip through CU v FEC.
In June of 2004, controversial documentary filmmaker Michael Moore released a film titled Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature where freedom burns (clever, huh?) Moore is no friend of conservatives and this film focused on President Bush's activity before, during and after the attacks even going so far as to assert that 9/11 was an inside job. (These conspiracy theorists are referred to ironically as 'truthers.') Whatever your opinion on the matter, what was clear was that Moore's goals with the film were to influence the upcoming 2004 election between President Bush and Senator John Kerry. It apparently didn't work.
Citizens United is a non-profit conservative advocacy group. They protested that the release of Fahrenheit 9/11 prior to the election violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA") This act prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Citizens United's challenge of the film's release with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was dismissed. So CU's response was basically "Okay. If liberals like Michael Moore can do it, we can, too." So they released a film in early 2008 called Hillary: The Movie to be released on DirecTV. This film was highly critical of then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The advertisements for the film ran before the Democratic Primary, which caused the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to claim the film violated the boundaries set by BCRA. Citizens United appealed the decision to the Supreme Court (which by this time had been restocked with Conservative leaning President Bush picks). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.
A constitutional attorney would be helpful at this point as I've basically summed up what Wikipedia has to offer on the subject (don't worry - I corroborated with other sources). If you were able to follow the two previous paragraphs then you might look at the Supreme Court decision and conclude that they sort of had to rule in favor of CU and the airing of their conservative film since the FEC had allowed Michael Moore's liberal film. Denying CU's appeal would lead people to think there was a partisan double standard - liberals can do this but conservatives can't.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has opened the door to all sorts of "propaganda." Consider the film 2016: Obama's America. This was released the year of Obama's re-election campaign and argues that President Obama wants to reduce significantly the U.S.'s influence within the world while increasing the influence of nations that he believes have suffered or been held back economically or militarily due to U.S. and Western domination. Overall, it's a very negative portrayal of the President. I haven't seen the film so I won't comment on it, but just like Fahrenheit 9/11, I'll assume it runs with some basic facts and then gives you a very biased picture of what the filmmaker believes is the "truth." Thanks to the Supreme Court's decision regarding CU vs. FEC, Obama supporters had little recourse but to let the film be released. Much like Fahrenheit 9/11, it apparently had little effect on the election.
This is really just the back-story. As Shakespeare wrote, "What is past is prologue." In future posts I'll go over the way to go about analyzing propositions of fact and some basic PRO and CON approaches. As with all topics, I highly recommend you do some research on your own. I've only provided the "children's dictionary" set-up.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Gollum: A case study of retribution v rehabilitation
I've been pretty Batman heavy, so let me move to another trilogy I enjoy: The Lord of the Rings.
One important question underlying the rehab v retribution debate is whether or not a bad person CAN be rehabilitated. Those sentenced for alcohol-related crimes may have the alcoholic gene. More violent criminals may be sociopaths, incapable of reform. And the issue of whether or not child molesters can be truly reformed is a debate for another time and with someone more knowledgeable. But in Tolkien's fictional character of Gollum, we see a real conflict between the desire to reform and the desire to treat people as means to an end.
A little back story on Gollum for those unfamiliar with the character...
He was once a regular person named Smeagol who had a friend who by chance found the ring. Smeagol saw it and was captivated by it immediately. His friend refuses to give it to him and a fight ensues, where Smeagol ends up strangling his friend to death and obtaining the ring. The film doesn't offer specifics but what's clear is that Smeagol's life is changed forever. As the ring has corrupted his soul, his body and appearance reflect that evil and gives him his almost-demonic-like appearance. He also suffers from a sort of split personality. On one side there is Smeagol, the innocent soul who just wanted a day of fishing with his good buddy. On the other side is Gollum - who embodies the same avarice as the Dark Lord Sauron and seeks the ring at all costs, poisoning everything that is good in Smeagol.
When Frodo and his friend Sam are on their trek to take the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it, they are met by Gollum. Frodo has the opportunity to kill him, just as Bilbo did nearly 60 years earlier, but he relents and bargains with Gollum. He spares his life in return for Gollum's guidance through Mordor. Sam immediately protests this decision and we see that Frodo and Sam have two distinct philosophies on crime. Frodo believes in Gollum's rehabilitation. He even begins to refer to him as Smeagol to help him free himself from the desire for the ring. Sam never gives him a chance. In Sam's mind, Gollum will ALWAYS be Gollum, nothing more than a greedy, deceitful murderer. Reform is not possible in Sam's mind.
For the most part, Smeagol's rehabilitation is successful and he jumps around in glee once he realizes he's free from the influence of the ring and Gollum. But this victory is short-lived for circumstances cause Frodo to betray Smeagol and all the progress is undone. By the end of the second film, Gollum has returned and devises a plan to kill Sam and Frodo. He also learns to manipulate Frodo's trust of him in order to drive a wedge between him and Sam's friendship.
All this leads back to the question of whether or not your average convict has this struggle. What about someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter because they were driving drunk and killed a family of five? What about someone who broke into someone's car to steal something to feed a drug habit? What about someone who is convicted of assault after beating his spouse? Do these persons need more exposure to the "Frodos" of the criminal justice system - people who believe in their ability to reform? Or is it just a waste of time and we're better off adopting Sam's attitude that people who do horrible things like this are beyond help?
Here are a couple of websites to help you through this:
There's this one
and this one
One important question underlying the rehab v retribution debate is whether or not a bad person CAN be rehabilitated. Those sentenced for alcohol-related crimes may have the alcoholic gene. More violent criminals may be sociopaths, incapable of reform. And the issue of whether or not child molesters can be truly reformed is a debate for another time and with someone more knowledgeable. But in Tolkien's fictional character of Gollum, we see a real conflict between the desire to reform and the desire to treat people as means to an end.
A little back story on Gollum for those unfamiliar with the character...
He was once a regular person named Smeagol who had a friend who by chance found the ring. Smeagol saw it and was captivated by it immediately. His friend refuses to give it to him and a fight ensues, where Smeagol ends up strangling his friend to death and obtaining the ring. The film doesn't offer specifics but what's clear is that Smeagol's life is changed forever. As the ring has corrupted his soul, his body and appearance reflect that evil and gives him his almost-demonic-like appearance. He also suffers from a sort of split personality. On one side there is Smeagol, the innocent soul who just wanted a day of fishing with his good buddy. On the other side is Gollum - who embodies the same avarice as the Dark Lord Sauron and seeks the ring at all costs, poisoning everything that is good in Smeagol.
When Frodo and his friend Sam are on their trek to take the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it, they are met by Gollum. Frodo has the opportunity to kill him, just as Bilbo did nearly 60 years earlier, but he relents and bargains with Gollum. He spares his life in return for Gollum's guidance through Mordor. Sam immediately protests this decision and we see that Frodo and Sam have two distinct philosophies on crime. Frodo believes in Gollum's rehabilitation. He even begins to refer to him as Smeagol to help him free himself from the desire for the ring. Sam never gives him a chance. In Sam's mind, Gollum will ALWAYS be Gollum, nothing more than a greedy, deceitful murderer. Reform is not possible in Sam's mind.
For the most part, Smeagol's rehabilitation is successful and he jumps around in glee once he realizes he's free from the influence of the ring and Gollum. But this victory is short-lived for circumstances cause Frodo to betray Smeagol and all the progress is undone. By the end of the second film, Gollum has returned and devises a plan to kill Sam and Frodo. He also learns to manipulate Frodo's trust of him in order to drive a wedge between him and Sam's friendship.
All this leads back to the question of whether or not your average convict has this struggle. What about someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter because they were driving drunk and killed a family of five? What about someone who broke into someone's car to steal something to feed a drug habit? What about someone who is convicted of assault after beating his spouse? Do these persons need more exposure to the "Frodos" of the criminal justice system - people who believe in their ability to reform? Or is it just a waste of time and we're better off adopting Sam's attitude that people who do horrible things like this are beyond help?
Here are a couple of websites to help you through this:
There's this one
and this one
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Jan./Feb. LD topic
Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.
Several things about this topic:
1. First, it's important to think about the OVERALL impact of rehab vs. retaliation. Clearly in drug related cases (possession, use, etc.) it's easy to argue rehab vs. retribution. But what about other types of crimes - crimes that aren't victimless crimes? Robbery, rape, murder? These are clearly crimes that involve a victim and the question of how the criminal justice system should approach these criminals becomes more complicated.
2. What is justice? Is the goal of justice to right wrongs or ensure a safer society? The easy answer is both and that righting wrongs by imprisonment (retribution) does make things safer. But can the criminal justice system be an effective deterrent against crime if it's more focused on rehab than retaliation? Is the criminal justice system which right now prioritizes retribution (hence the wording of the resolution) being undermined by that position?
3. Look at the recidivism rate (the rate at which criminals released from prison commit crimes and return - they become career criminals). Is retribution really the best way to address that? This goes back to the deterrence issue. If the focus was to rehabilitate these criminals (and rehab entails helping these folks obtain jobs and become functional members of society so that a life of crime becomes less lucrative) would the recidivism rate be reduced?
These are just a few questions to be parsed before jumping into value/value criterion pairings. This is a great topic and should spur some good debates. Good luck!
Several things about this topic:
1. First, it's important to think about the OVERALL impact of rehab vs. retaliation. Clearly in drug related cases (possession, use, etc.) it's easy to argue rehab vs. retribution. But what about other types of crimes - crimes that aren't victimless crimes? Robbery, rape, murder? These are clearly crimes that involve a victim and the question of how the criminal justice system should approach these criminals becomes more complicated.
2. What is justice? Is the goal of justice to right wrongs or ensure a safer society? The easy answer is both and that righting wrongs by imprisonment (retribution) does make things safer. But can the criminal justice system be an effective deterrent against crime if it's more focused on rehab than retaliation? Is the criminal justice system which right now prioritizes retribution (hence the wording of the resolution) being undermined by that position?
3. Look at the recidivism rate (the rate at which criminals released from prison commit crimes and return - they become career criminals). Is retribution really the best way to address that? This goes back to the deterrence issue. If the focus was to rehabilitate these criminals (and rehab entails helping these folks obtain jobs and become functional members of society so that a life of crime becomes less lucrative) would the recidivism rate be reduced?
These are just a few questions to be parsed before jumping into value/value criterion pairings. This is a great topic and should spur some good debates. Good luck!
Jan. PF Topic
It's been out for a while.
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
This is a good place to get started. Plus it has a Stephen Colbert video.
Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.
This is a good place to get started. Plus it has a Stephen Colbert video.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)