The Instigator
Pfalcon1318
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Martley
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

All Accused People Should Have the Right to Name Suppression Until They are Proven Guilty.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Martley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 56284
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Pfalcon1318

Pro

I saw this debate elsewhere. (here [1] to be precise). It seems quite interesting, but PRO did not present an argument. (There were several back-to-back forfeits).

Perhaps you might wish to actually engage in debate on the topic, Martley?

I'm going to define a few terms here, as the resolution is really ambiguous otherwise.

Firstly, it should be understood that "name suppression" refers specifically to the suppression of the release of the information of the accused to the public prior to the verdict. Meaning, if X is not found guilty, anyone who is not directly involved should not be aware that X is being charged., or, stated another way, only those who are involved in the trial should be aware of the information of the accused.

"Right" in the scope of this debate should be understood as a legal right born of a moral right. The most obvious and easily accessible example I can find to describe this would be the right to Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly [2]. We can start from certain axiomatic statements (particularly those of Libertarian Origins*), and arrive at one's moral right to speak as they please, print what they please, and gather with whom they please. It then falls to some group (which government currently) to defend this moral ride by codifying it into law. Thus, we have a legal right, codified in the First Amendment, born of a moral right, born of certain axiomatic principles.**

So, our resolution can be summarized as follows:

For all X, if X is charged with a crime and found not guilty, X is should not be known to the general public, and there does not exist any person Y such that Y was not either present at the trial or knows someone that was, and knows X was charged.

I don't think any symbolization of this is necessary, as there is no syllogism to follow it. If you would like to address this for any reason, please do so in the comments prior to accepting, Martley. It will ensure the debate is focused on the specific topic at hand, and avoid any confusion.

I'm not going to structure the debate in any particular way beyond this:

1. Burden of Proof shall be shared, though not necessarily equally. It is up to the audience to decide whether BoP has been reasonably upheld by each participant.

2. If you decide to begin your case in Round 1, i ask that you simply type "No round, as agreed upon". Otherwise, we shall begin arguments in Round 2.

3. Keep this a civil endeavor.

4. If you notice Logical Fallacies, please explain how the use of said fallacy diminishes the strength of the argument. Simply asserting "My opponent is guilty of [insert fallacy here] fallacy." does not constitute an argument, and is to implicitly state "and this makes them incorrect". This is simply committing The Fallacist's Fallacy. [3]

*This is not to say the Libertarianism is in anyway true or correct. However, the methodology used is identical to the methodology this debate will be centered on.

**This is in reference back to Libertarianism. Three principles are used as axioms, whether justified by derivation or simply assumed, to arrive at certain conclusions, in this example, the conclusion is that we have he right to speak as we please, provided we are not infringing on the rights of others.


[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[3] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Martley

Con

I accept and look forward to a fun debate, thank you for the opportunity!
Debate Round No. 1
Pfalcon1318

Pro

Pfalcon1318 forfeited this round.
Martley

Con

It seems no one will debate on this... I expected more. I hope to see you in round 2. I will be here....
Debate Round No. 2
Pfalcon1318

Pro

Pfalcon1318 forfeited this round.
Martley

Con

Well... I will put forth a little more argument for this topic, in addition to what I have already posted in the previous debate and in comments.

The freedom of the press to report is well established and I think not a debated issue. The issue is whether the court system should make certain information available to the public. However, I think the position that names and information should withheld from the public deny's the basic legal system that our country is founded upon. Our court system is based on our constitution, but our constitution is fundamentally based upon a free and open legal system established through a long common law tradition. The free and open formate of our courts is the fundamental oversight we have of our legal system. Do we really want a court system that prosecutes persons without public knowledge?? Do we want a legal system that searches for dangerous criminals without the public knowing vital information that may help apprehend these persons, or know that they are loose in our communities?? The fundamental freedom, safety and oversight of our legal system is totally based on free and open information of courts in the public domain.
Debate Round No. 3
Pfalcon1318

Pro

Pfalcon1318 forfeited this round.
Martley

Con

"press and public have a First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings.5 First, the Court must consider "whether the place and process have been historically open to the press and general public."6 Second, the Court must consider "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question."7 Since Richmond Newspapers, courts have extended this "history and logic" test to establish a constitutional right of access to criminal and civil court proceedings and records.8 When the First Amendment right of access applies, the Supreme Court has held that a presumption of disclosure requires courts to grant access unless specific, on-the-record findings demonstrate that closure is "necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

There is well established tradition in common law and the SCOTUS that criminal and civil court cases should and must be open to public. The issue of the press to report this information is covered under the First Amendment.

http://www.rcfp.org...

http://www.casebriefs.com...

A judge"s order that the media not publish or broadcast statements by police in a murder trial was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The gag order violated the First Amendment rights of the press and the community.

http://www.casebriefs.com...

A Louisiana law that punished true statements made with "actual malice" was overturned. The Court ruled that unless a newspaper shows "reckless disregard for the truth," it is protected under the First Amendment.

http://supreme.justia.com...

A state law allowing prior restraint was unconstitutional. This decision also extended protection of press freedom to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.casebriefs.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Pfalcon1318

Pro

Pfalcon1318 forfeited this round.
Martley

Con

I regret that we could not have this debate. I am still looking forward to someone debating me on this topic.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
please let me debate you. certainly you have the ability to defeat such as I. I welcome your hammer.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Martley, I'm sure if you issue this debate challenge and control the settings so nobody accepts, you'll get a few worthy opponents to choose from.
Posted by Martley 3 years ago
Martley
I thank you for the response, I did misunderstand your point. You seem like a very nice guy and I look forward to our debate!
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
The terms are too limiting... It was an example of how moral rights can be codified into law. I did state, quite explicitly, "This is not to say the Libertarianism is in anyway true or correct. However, the methodology used is identical to the methodology this debate will be centered on". Meaning that if X right can be justified, it can then be codified into law. I am not restricting this to a libertarianism-based debate. I am using Libertarian principles as an example to describe the process by which rights can POSSIBLY be derived.

I made the explicit statement that "'Right; in the scope of this debate should be understood as a legal right born of a moral right", which, again, goes back to what rights can be derived. If you would like to suggest new definitions, please do so. If you simply misunderstood what I was trying to do, I can go back and change it to better reflect what I meant. Your statement that my terms are limiting seems to be based on a misunderstanding. I am not aware of any rights which cannot be, or have not been, justified within some moral/ethical philosophy.
Posted by Martley 3 years ago
Martley
Unfortunately I do not agree with your clarification of terms and your use of the First Amendment in your interpretation of rights, I feel this will simply lead to a debate about First Amendment interpretation differences between you and I that will overtake the true topic. Federal courts have recognized a right of public access, rooted in the First Amendment, Sixth Amendment and common law. Where as you use the First Amendment to establish a Libertarian view of the rights of the individual, actually the First Amendment has long stood (and previously in common law) as the collective right of the mass information. Although the First Amendment does not expressly address public access, it "goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."[1] The First Amendment carries with it a freedom to listen, and a right to "receive information and ideas" [2] and the freedom to relate this information and ideas to the public with government prejudiced. The doors our the court system were publicly open long before the First Amendment. To limit ourselves to a libertarian view of the First Amendment is to deny our longstanding legal traditions to which arguments can be based, and our societal collective right to mass information. I feel your term definitions are far too limiting and I do not agree with them.

1. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
2. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Pfalcon1318MartleyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff