The Instigator
moneymachine2004
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

All Defendants Should Be Guaranteed a Reasonable Bail

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 19004
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (9)

 

moneymachine2004

Pro

Many Defendants are denied bail. The Supreme Court got it wrong, this is unconstitutional. Submit Your Argument and I will respond
Ore_Ele

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for offering this debate. My opponent originally posted this as an open debate, and I said I'd like to accept it if he would just modify the conditions (debate time length). However, someone else had accepted the debate before he changed it, so he went ahead and challenged me directly. So I thank him for that.

I believe it should be noted, that based on my opponent's argument in his opening round, he is arguing that the offering of "no bail" is never reasonable. This is based on his statement of "Many Defendants are denied bail. The Supreme Court got it wrong, this is unconstitutional."

Therefore, this debate will focus around, if the "no bail" option (or "bail denied" option, pending how you want to word it) is ever reasonable under any circumstance. Even though I am Con, I believe that the BoP is on me to show cases where this is reasonable. So before I begin, I will go ahead and define some words.

Bail [1] – "The temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, sometimes on condition that a sum of money be lodged to guarantee their appearance in court."

Reasonable [2] – "Having sound judgment; fair and sensible, Based on good sense."

I will focus on hypothetical cases which have likely occurred many times in US history, however, the actual examples are not needed. These hypotheticals will be based around the safety of individuals and/or the general public.

1)A man is caught in midst of attempting to kill someone while under heavy emotional rage (perhaps someone slept with his wife or daughter). At this point, the trial is merely a formality that must be observed for justice. A psychological evaluation shows that the man still holds extreme rage against this individual even after being caught (but before the trial). It is reasonable that if the individual is released on bail, that he might use that time to go after the other individual and attempt to harm or even kill that person. If this is a reasonable fear, then it is also reasonable that the person should not be released on bail, so "no bail" or "bail denied" is reasonable.

2)A person, at the bottom of his rope (homeless and penniless) comes to the conclusion that all his problems are purely society's fault. As such, he takes a knife, runs into a mall and begins stabbing anyone and everyone that he can before he is detained by police. With this case, too, the trial is merely a formality that must be observed. If the man has desires to destroy society for wronging him (in his mind). It is reasonable to say that he should not be released back into society until those thoughts have passed. As such, it is also reasonable to deny him bail while he maintains those thoughts.

3)Obama Bin Ladin (or whoever is the next living guy in line for the leadership position) is captured and held to stand trial. Given the severe flight risk that releasing on bail would cause and that he (namely his group of followers) certainly has the finances and means to travel a great distance in a short time to escape, it is also reasonable to not offer a bail to him.

These are three hypothetical cases where denying bail is a reasonable action to take.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.google.com...
[2] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
moneymachine2004

Pro

1)A man is caught in midst of attempting to kill someone while under heavy emotional rage (perhaps someone slept with his wife or daughter). At this point, the trial is merely a formality that must be observed for justice. A psychological evaluation shows that the man still holds extreme rage against this individual even after being caught (but before the trial). It is reasonable that if the individual is released on bail, that he might use that time to go after the other individual and attempt to harm or even kill that person. If this is a reasonable fear, then it is also reasonable that the person should not be released on bail, so "no bail" or "bail denied" is reasonable.

I will assume council for the accused the Con mentioned in the hypothetical.

1. Innocent until found Guilty

I would point out to the judge that my client is innocent until proved guilty. I would argue that my client has an excellent chance for acquittal as any good attorney would. I would also point out to the judge that the court that the courts cannot not impose an excessive bail even in light a damning psychological evaluation or likelihood of a conviction.

2. The 8th amendment

I would take a copy of the constitution out and read aloud the pertinent part of the eight amendment "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." I would declare that the court cannot impose an excessive bail for my client.

3. Historical Context

I would point out to the court the historical context for which the 8th amendment was borne. Many people in England were placed in jail and given excessive bails because they spoke ill of the governing class. In response to this injustice England passed legislation barring excessive bails on the accused. The founder fathers wrote the 8th amendment largely with this injustice in mind. The founding fathers understood that the power to impose excessive bails could be used to suppress free speech. Moreover, the Bill of Rights were made with the specific intent to protect the rights of the people from governmental tyranny.

4. Plain Language of the 8th amendment

I would argue to the court that the 8th amendment makes no distinction between violent and non violent crimes. The plain language says that "excessive bail shall not be required" which means it applies to all crimes wherein the government demands bails. This simply means that the government cannot impose a bail so excessive that it would prohibit a person of normal means from being able to raise such bail.

5. Logical Analysis

I would argue that it would be illogical that the courts would be limited as to the dollar amount it could impose on a defendant accused of a crime, yet be permitted to deny bail altogether. If the government can deny bail and that denial can be found not to be excessive than there can be no dollar amount, regardless of the amount, that could be found to be excessive since the former is always greater than the latter in theory. For instance, a person would be better off to be imposed a 500 trillion dollars bail versus someone being denied bail completely. If one believes that 500 trillion dollars is an unreasonable bail then they have no choice but to also reject no bail since it is more than 500 trillion in theory. Moreover, if one believes that that government can deny bail, then what is the purpose of the 8th amendment. If the 8th amendment does not limited the government from imposing any amount or denying bail all together than what purpose does it serve. How does it protect citizens? It is illogical that the 8th amendment limit's the government from imposing certain dollars amounts but permits denying bail which is a greater injustice.

6. Summary of Arguments

I would argue that the court, by denying my client bail, is imposing a bail amount greater than 500 trillion dollars which I use because it exceeds the total amount of available currency in the United States. It is unreasonable and excessive by definition since the amount is unattainable. Even Bill Gates would remain in behind bars. I would argue that the bail must be some number, at the very least, lower than the total amount of all currency in the United States. I would also argue that the part of the 8th amendment concerning excessive bails is rendered null and void if the government is permitted to deny bail completely. For these reasons, the appellant court would have no choice but to force the lower court to impose a new bail that is less than 500 trillion dollars. As for the public safety issues. It is the government responsibility to protect witnesses and the public at larger while my client is out on bail. They must maintain close surveillance on him if they feel its necessary to ensure public safety. However, they are not allowed to impose an excessive bail on my client which because it violates his rights under the eighth amendment.

2)A person, at the bottom of his rope (homeless and penniless) comes to the conclusion that all his problems are purely society's fault. As such, he takes a knife, runs into a mall and begins stabbing anyone and everyone that he can before he is detained by police. With this case, too, the trial is merely a formality that must be observed. If the man has desires to destroy society for wronging him (in his mind). It is reasonable to say that he should not be released back into society until those thoughts have passed. As such, it is also reasonable to deny him bail while he maintains those thoughts.

If the homeless man seeks bail, then the bail cannot exceed more than all the money that exist in the United States. One cannot possibly argue that such a bail would not be excessive. Thus, the homeless man must be granted a bail that is at least lower than that amount. If all the money in the United States equals 500 trillion dollars than its must be some number under that amount. The eighth amendment guarantees the homeless man the right against having to obtain an excessive bail. If a bail exceeds all the money in the United States--it is excessive. Why would the government impose a 500 trillion dollar or more bail when the homeless man is presumed innocent of the crime anyway? It is, however, possible that the homeless man will be committed to a mental institution irrespective to his innocence or guilt to the crime in question--especially if he "has desires to destroy society for wronging him in his mind." The government can take this action if the man's mental state poses a risk to himself or others. There is no need to violated the homeless man's constitutional rights which guarantees that he shall be free from having to obtain an excessive bail.

3)Obama Bin Ladin (or whoever is the next living guy in line for the leadership position) is captured and held to stand trial. Given the severe flight risk that releasing on bail would cause and that he (namely his group of followers) certainly has the finances and means to travel a great distance in a short time to escape, it is also reasonable to not offer a bail to him.

I assume that my opponent is referring to Osama Bin Laden. Since Osama Bin Laden or any leader from another country would be in effect declaring war on the United States they would be declared as an enemy combatant. Enemy Combatants are not covered by the 8th amendment. These individuals would be tried in a Military Tribunal. Of course bail could be denied in this instance.

One last thought to consider

A court has the option to either require or not require bail. The court rarely requires bail for less serious crime. The accused How then is it possible for the court to not require bail, but still hold the accused. The accused is presumed innocent so what is the government holding them for. The founding fathers presumed that the accused would go free if the court choose not to require bail.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent brings up several points. I will address them in the order that they are presented.

1)Innocent until found guilty.
There is no Presumption of Innocence Clause in the US Constitution. While our courts choose to do that and basically say that the BoP is on the prosecution to prove guilt, rather than the defense to prove innocent, the fact of the matter is objectively, the moment you commit a crime, you are at that instant, a guilty person. The only question is whether or not the court finds you guilty. As such, when there is damning evidence for a crime, and damning evidence that others will be in harm's way if the person is allowed to roam free, then denying bail is a reasonable action.

2)The 8th Amendment.
Denying bail is not excessive bail, no more than saying something is not for sale is an excessive price. I would also like to point out that we are arguing if something is reasonable or not. Just because something is unconstitutional does not make it unreasonable.

3)Historical Context
People in England were being prosecuted for political crimes, as such, the bail (and the act of arresting itself) was unreasonable. Unless my opponent wishes to argue that arresting someone for aggravated assault or attempted murder is unreasonable, than the two cannot be compared side by side.

4)Plain Language of the 8th
This falls back to the 8th amendment, which falls back to reasonable vs constitutional.

5)Logical Analysis
My opponent argues that "no bail" is more than "$500 trillion bail." This is inaccurate. As said before, if something is not for sale, that does not make it worth more than $500 trillion. My opponent is confusing "no bail" with "unlimited bail." These two things are not the same, as "no bail" is refusing to put a dollar amount to it, because it cannot be converted into dollars. Trying to force it into dollars anyway is illogical.

Additional Arguments –
There is no reason to assume that the only form of bail is to be in dollar amounts. For example, there is no reason to say that the courts cannot impose a bail of 30 days instead of $300,000 or something to that nature. As such, there is no reason to say that courts cannot impose a bail of X days, where X is the number of days until their trial. As when someone is then sentenced to jail, the days that they have already spent are deducted from their sentence (so if you spend 4 months while waiting for your trial, and you're sentenced to 12 months, you only have 8 months left), so the time spent waiting for the trial is then recouped (just like the money spent on bail when you show up).

These criticisms hold through the other examples. As for the "Obama – Osama" slip up. I assure everyone that it was nothing more than a slip up, and not an attempt at a political jab.

In summary –
We see that constitutional =/= unreasonable, and even if it did, Presumption of Innocence Clause is not in the constitution. And there is no reason to assume that bail must be a dollar amount. My opponent states, "As for the public safety issues. It is the government responsibility to protect witnesses and the public at large," and that is exactly the reasonable reasoning for denying bail to certain individuals.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
moneymachine2004

Pro

My opponent brings up several points. I will address them in the order that they are presented.

1)Innocent until found guilty.

There is no Presumption of Innocence Clause in the US Constitution.

Whoa there cowboy. The Con must be living in another country. See 1894, Coffin vs. U.S. A lower court had refused to instruct the jury that "The law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until they are proven by competent evidence to be guilty." The Con should understand that most of the American legal standards are derived from Supreme Court decisions. While there is nothing is explicitly in the Constitution that mentions that a person is innocent until proven guilty--Coffin vs. U.S.A made it just as constitutional. Thus, I have proved that the person in the example has a constitutional guarantee that he is indeed innocent until proven guilty. However, the Con is correct that the government can still require bail, but not excessive and that the focus must remain on whether denying bail is unreasonable.

2)The 8th Amendment.

Denying bail is not excessive bail, no more than saying something is not for sale is an excessive price.

The analogy fails because there is no constitutional right attached to the sale of an item where there is with bail. For instance, if older people were being charge excessive amounts of cancer drugs in the United States, the people might authorize an amendment that forbids excessive prices for cancers drugs. In this instance, I would argue that the government (provided it was universal health care) could not deny a person from purchasing the drug unless it was unavailable. The purpose of the statue is to prevent the government from overcharging citizens for cancer drugs. Denying citizens from purchasing drugs would not be consistent with that purpose.

3)Historical Context

People in England were being prosecuted for political crimes, as such, the bail (and the act of arresting itself) was unreasonable.

The excessive bails and the length of time the accused had to wait for the trial was the main concern. The Con must understand that a tyrannical government can detain innocent persons for political reasons but still arrest them for aggravated assault and attempted murder with trumped up evidence. Again, innocent until proven guilty.

4)Plain Language of the 8th

I will address this in my closing argument.

5)Logical Analysis

My opponent is confusing "no bail" with "unlimited bail.

It seems that my opponent is a little confused. His own definition implies that bail is a condition for a person awaiting a trial that may include a requirement of cash. Thus, no bail means that there is no condition that could satisfy court for the accused release. I have no idea as what unlimited bail could mean. I address my analogy more directly when responding to your additional argument section below.

Additional Arguments"

There is no reason to assume that the only form of bail is to be in dollar amounts.

Primary focus on cash

The argument listed above does not invalidate my logic whatsoever. It simply correctly points out that there are other conditions for bail other than cash. More specifically a bail could be contingent on days, restrictions to release or the requirement of a cash amount. I must point out to the Con that I am not concerned with days or other restrictions as conditions required for the accused temporary release. This is not to say that the excused could not argue that the conditions for release are excessive, however in both instances the accused will be release from jail. I am only troubled when the accused remains detained indefinitely while awaiting trial. This occurs only when the accused cannot raise cash necessary to make satisfy the bail requirement or when he or she is denied bail completely. Thus, I only compare those two because those may lead to the bail being unreasonable. My original analogy is still valid, but I will make the point without converting no bail in cash terms.

Analogy

Any reasonable person would have to agree that imposing a 500 trillion dollar condition for release would be excessive and unreasonable for several reasons. One, the person is presumed to be innocent. Two, the court can impose strict conditions for release which can include 24 hour supervision of the accused--if public safety is at issue. Third, 500 trillion dollars would exceed all available money in the United States. How can such an amount ever be unreasonable? If one believes that the 500 trillion dollar bail is excessive and unreasonable then they must also agree that denying bail is excessive and unreasonable as well, since the latter is more harsh than the former. As I have noted, the Federal Reserve might print 500 trillion for the accused and therefore he or she might go free. Not likely. However, when the court denies bail there is no possible condition that could satisfy the court for his or her release.

Summary

It is unreasonable to deny bail because

[1] 1. Everyone in the United States is presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law see 1894, Coffin vs. U.S. A. Denying bail presumes that the defendant is guilty prior to a trial which the Con believes is perfectly fine. If one agrees with the Con then they should vote with him now. However, such a justice system is inherently unfair since the government who has unlimited resources would not be required to bare the burden of proof. A citizen would be require to prove his or her innocence in a court of law. An indigent defendant would not only have to rely on a public defender (which in most cases a travesty of justice) but also will have no way to pay for expensive DNA tests, crime scene reconstruction, experts or whatever evidence that might be needed to prove their innocence. Moreover, the government would really have no need to offer bail, since of course the defendant is assumed to be guilty. This is a very scary preposition indeed.

[2] The 8th amendment has historical significance that dates back to England. The primary concerns were citizens being required to post excessive bails, remaining in jail with no court dates scheduled and being subject to cruel punishments once found guilty. The Constitution was designed to prevent those injustices in the United States. Denying a person any condition for release renders the 8th amendment as it relates to not permitting excessive bails useless with no practical purpose. If the government can impose no condition to satisfy a bail release then what could possibly be excessive. No condition for bail no matter how excessive (even if its a 500 trillion dollar condition) can be worse than not permitting any conditions for bail at all.

[3] The purpose of the 8th amendment was to prevent the government from imposing excessive bails. Permitting the government to deny bail completely is not consistent with the intended goal.

For the various reasons listed above, it is never reasonable to deny a person any condition for his or her release before a trial. If the court believes that a defendant is guilty and poses a significant flight or public safety risk, they can impose very strict conditions for his or her release. The court could make a condition of the bail that requires the accused to remain home. They could then place police officers outside his or her house 24-hours a day. The bail can be revoked if the accused violates any condition of the bail. The founding fathers believed that requiring an excessive condition for a person accused release, regardless of the crime charge with, was unreasonable. I happen to agree with them. The question is do you?
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for their latest round. For organizational purposes, I will by combining all the 8th amendment points into 1 point, rather than 3.

1)Innocent until found guilty.

My opponent points to a supreme court ruling, Coffin v U.S. [1], to argue that we have the presumption of innocence. Since my opponent has appealed to the supreme court as a legitimate authoritative figure, I have the option of either calling out an appeal to authority or accepting it. I choose to accept it and would like to point out U.S. v Salerno [2], where the supreme court rules that preventative bail (meaning no bail) does not violate the constitution, saying "We reject the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release."

If my opponent chooses to accept the supreme court as a legitimate authority, then he must accept their ruling on bail. If he back tracks and rejects their authority, then he must forfeit the Presumption of Innocence. If he tries to maintain PoI while rejecting the court's ruling on bail, he has then committed a special pleading fallacy.

2)8th Amendment

My opponent states that there is a constitutional right attached to bail, however, there is not. There is only a constitutional right to prevent "excessive bail," not a right to bail outright. Since there is no right to bail, the analogy holds. However, whether there is a "right" or not does not actually disprove the analogy, since "rights" had nothing to do with the analogy. It merely showed that saying something is not for sale (the equivalent of saying "no bail") is not the same as saying something has unlimited price or value (or saying that it is more than $500 trillion). My opponent is trying to twist a logical distinction into an ethical one (by claiming that there is a "right").

3)Primary focus on cash

My opponent accepts that alternative methods, other than cash can be applied. This causes his entire argument to fail, because there is not a conversion from one currency into another. Example, if the judge were to impose a bail of "7 days" (meaning the defendant would be held for seven days, maybe to allow the victim time to recover and get safe, or what not), then $500 trillion would not be sufficient to meet bail. Therefore, my opponent's analogy would state that "7 days" is unreasonable. Let's say the bail is reduced to merely "1 hour." The same holds true, that $500 trillion would not be sufficient, and so a bail of "1 hour" is unreasonable, even though my opponent has accepted it.

Now, let's say that bail is twisted around the other way, since my opponent accepts "time" as a legitimate condition for bail. Let's say a bail of $200 was set, in that case, "10 years" would not cover that, and so $200 would have to be deemed as "unreasonable." By this very standard, any bail instantly becomes "unreasonable" so the analogy is defeated through reductio ad absurdum. This can also be reduced further by stating that the very act of being arrested for even a single second is "unreasonable."

4)"Very strict conditions for release"

My opponent argues that courts can "impose very strict conditions for his or her release" and lists several of them. Such as requiring them to stay home, and placing police around their home 24/7. This is an obvious double standard from special pleading. If my opponent argues that keeping someone trapped in a cell before conviction violates their rights, then he must also argue that keeping someone trapped in their home before conviction violates those same rights. The only difference is location, but the restriction on freedom is equal.

In Summary

We find that we cannot accept presumption of innocence without also accepting that no bail is not excessive bail (thanks to the supreme court). We find that since cash is not the only form of bail, "no bail" cannot possibly be excessive without the entire bail process being excessive and so that argument fails. We still see that unconstitutional =/= unreasonable.

[1] http://www.constitution.org...
[2] http://supreme.justia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
moneymachine2004

Pro

1)Innocent until found guilty.

My opponent points to a supreme court ruling, Coffin v U.S. [1], to argue that we have the presumption of innocence. Since my opponent has appealed to the supreme court as a legitimate authoritative figure

I took on this debate because I was well aware of the Supreme Court's decision. I said that they got it wrong--see my very first post. The government does has the right to pursue other admittedly compelling interest, such potential danger to society and flight risks, however they cannot do so if it violates the 8th amendment, which protects a person against excessive bail. The Con does not challenge Coffin v U.S so he must accept the decision as binding.

"We reject the proposition that the Eighth Amendment categorically prohibits the government from pursuing other admittedly compelling interests through regulation of pretrial release."

This is extremely dangerous because constitutional rights should not be abridged. Should this standard apply to all constitutional rights? Can we suspend the 14th amendment if there were compelling reasons? How about voting rights for woman? How about a right to a jury trial? Prior to this decision, the court only limited free speech, wherein the speech itself was dangerous--used to incite a riot or speech designed to cause mayhem such as yelling fire in a crowed movie theater. Moreover, I have proved that the court could rule that denying bail completely was unconstitutional particularly since there are other ways to address the compelling interests that they speak of--such as 24 hour surveillance or home confinement.

We find that since cash is not the only form of bail, "no bail" cannot possibly be excessive without the entire bail process being excessive and so that argument fails.

I don't follow the logic. Here is the only practical change that will occur. The Courts would be required to attach a numerical value to the bail if they are seeking to detain the prisoner until trial. We can debate what amount would be excessive or not at another time. For now, the standard would be some number less than 500 trillion dollars or any amount that exceeds the available money in the United States. This may or may not apply to suspended bail, which will be discussed later.

I would urge the Con to explain his and the Supreme Court's logical reasoning instead of simply repeating the non sense they wrote in the majorities opinion. I await for a response on this question.

If my opponent chooses to accept the supreme court as a legitimate authority, then he must accept their ruling on bail. If he back tracks and rejects their authority, then he must forfeit the Presumption of Innocence. If he tries to maintain PoI while rejecting the court's ruling on bail, he has then committed a special pleading fallacy.

I will not back track. However, this does not mean that I accept every decision the Supreme Court decides, particularly the one you cite.

2)8th Amendment

My point is that you cannot make the analogy unless all conditions found within the analogies are present. I assert there is a constitutional requirement that there be a non excessive condition for release if the government wishes to detain a person awaiting trial. In your analogy there is no obligation that the company or person to sale the item at all. I base my reasoning primarily on the fact that a 500 trillion dollar cash bail is excessive and denying bail is more excessive because the condition is worse and punishment greater. The Con simply continues to argue that there is no right for a person to be entitled to a cash bail. Even if it is constitutional, the Con never explains why its reasonable to deny a person, assumed to be innocent a right to receive a condition for release.

Here is my argument in a nut shell

excessive bail = 500 trillion dollars exceeds all money in the U.S) [very harsh penalty]
no bail = no monetary value [a more harsh penalty]

The Con does not follow my logic. I ask the voter which is the worse penalty 500 trillion dollar bail requirement or being denied bail completely.

3)Primary focus on cash

My opponent accepts that alternative methods, other than cash can be applied. This causes his entire argument to fail, because there is not a conversion from one currency into another. Example, if the judge were to impose a bail of "7 days"

The person accused in his example is assumed to be innocent. Why is the Con still assuming that the defendant is guilty of the crime? I have argued throughout this debate that the courts should tie any condition with regard to public safety to the conditions of the bail. The Con attempts to win this debate with a red herring. In reality a person is either granted immediate release upon a payment of a cash requirement or they are denied bail completely--which means they must remain in jail until their trial date which was the purpose of this debate. The Con attempts to fabricate a scenario wherein it might be reasonable to deny a person awaiting trial for x amount of days. First, I never agreed that the court could make a bail condition based upon a certain amount days the accused must remain in jail. I only agreed that the person could be release on bail contingent upon a set number days consistent with the trial date. Second, the Con cannot cite one single example wherein a person was denied any condition for release for an hour, seven days or any set number of days. This is laughable and never done. Thirdly, I am not sure that one could call this new phenomenon denying bail since the accused will be granted bail at sometime in the future. This should be termed suspended bail as I mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, my analogy still holds true. If a 500 trillion dollar bail is excessive and unreasonable, then no bail is excessive and unreasonable. No bail is also a greater punishment then a suspended bail for similar reasons.

Now, let's say that bail is twisted around the other way, since my opponent accepts "time" as a legitimate condition for bail.

I only accept time as a condition for release as it relates to a trial date. In other words, the court can grant release based on a certain number of days equal to the trial date.

4)"Very strict conditions for release"

My opponent argues that courts can "impose very strict conditions for his or her release" and lists several of them. Such as requiring them to stay home, and placing police around their home 24/7.

No, the 8th amendment only requires that the government to give the accused a non excessive condition(s) for their release while awaiting trial. I argue that a suspended bail might be unreasonable even if it only briefly denies a person a non excessive condition. However, its irrelevant here. The person release and confined to their home has not been denied bail or had has bail suspended. They might argue that the bail was excessive, but I would rule against them.. The Pro is suggesting that a person is entitled to unabated freedom upon releases, I won't go that far.

In Summary

We find that we cannot accept presumption of innocence without also accepting that no bail is not excessive bail (thanks to the supreme court). No, I due accept the presumption of innocence, but I disagree with the court decision the Con presents for various reasons already established.

We find that since cash is not the only form of bail, "no bail" cannot possibly be excessive without the entire bail process being excessive and so that argument fails.

A system that is fundamental unfair should be replaced. Moreover, I believe that the bail system can function normally even if the court finds no bail to be unconstitutional. Nor would it jeopardize public safety.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for a most entertaining debate. I will take this final opportunity to toe up any loose ends and present a closing summary.

1) Presumption of Innocence

My opponent states "this does not mean that I accept every decision the Supreme Court decides…" This means that he cannot appeal to the supreme court as a legitimate authority figure. As he has presented no arguments for the PoI except for a supreme court ruling, his only argument is a special pleading fallacy and so it does not stand. As such, no PoI has been legitimately established through any solid reasoning.

2) 8th Amendment

This has failed on three different levels. Still my opponent thinks that "no bail" is the same as "infinite bail," but has not been able to show this. He has shown that no bail is "more harsh," however, has not shown anything to suggest "harshness" = "excessive." In other words, no bail may be more "harsh" than $500 trillion, but it is not more "excessive." The final way in which this fails is that my opponent never showed how something being unconstitutional was "unreasonable."

3) Primary focus on cash

My opponent completely dodges this point. Still, in his point he says, "I only accept time as a condition for release as it relates to a trial date." We can still apply his own logic, that if they are required to wait a set amount of time (as it relates to a trial date or not), then paying $500 trillion is not sufficient to meet those requirements, as the bail is set in a different currency and there is no conversion factor. By my opponent's own logic, he believes that any holding time is "excessive" because it cannot be met by $500 trillion dollars. This means one of two things. My opponent believes that "excessive" bail is not unreasonable, or his logic is illogical. Either way, this goes to Con.

4) Strict conditions

My opponent says that the 8th amendment only protects against non excessive conditions for bail. While his statement is true, it does not address the points made that section. Detaining someone at their home is still an infringement upon their liberties, just not against the 8th amendment. In particular, it goes against the 6th and 9th amendments. Pro cannot argue that the 8th amendment should be respected, but the rest should be disregarded.

In conclusion,

By saying that the supreme court is not a legitimate authority (a needed claim to make in order to have a debate on this subject), my opponent cannot claim the Presumption of Innocence. Because that cannot be claimed, it is safe to presume guilt in obvious cases (as listed in R1), and in which case, my opponent has not stated why "no bail" is unreasonable. He has tried to argue that it is unconstitutional, but at no point argued that it is "unreasonable."

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SimonTheFurious 2 years ago
SimonTheFurious
Hello,

I really enjoyed reading your debate well done.

I had a comment it may be dumb, but I wanted to mention it anyway.

The Cons Comment

"My opponent states that there is a constitutional right attached to bail, however, there is not. There is only a constitutional right to prevent "excessive bail," not a right to bail outright. Since there is no right to bail, the analogy holds"

"NOT A RIGHT TO BAIL OUTRIGHT" This is a very important comment

The 8th Amendment

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

The 10th Amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 10th Amendment is making a very powerful statement.

Anything that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government. Anything not explicitly stated in the Constitution means that the Federal Government cannot do it.
Conversely anything not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution means the State can do it.

In plain language the 8th Amendment GRANTS the Federal Government the right to require bail, and states that it shall not be excessive. By omission of plain language stating that no bail is also acceptable the Constitution prohibits such practice by the Federal Government.

You could still argue that the fact that the Constitution does not explicitly state the Federal Government has the right to deny bail, but at the same time does not explicitly prohibit the State from such practice means that only individual States reserve that right (10th Amendment), so there is a Constitutional Right to bail at least in Federal Court.

Bababoosh" Lawyered" Just kidding". Anyone who has watched Frisky Dingo or How I Met Your Mother probably finds this amusing.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I see you're still not convinced, Pro. If you want to debate me, I may be cogent enough to convince even you.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
While it is true, that specifically the 6th and 9th were not mentioned until the last round (voters should note that and vote accordingly), I did say in Round 3 that keeping someone locked up in their home against their will is no different than keeping them locked up in a prison cell against their will. One just happens to be a nice cell.

If the government cannot hold you in a prison cell until your trial, then by the same ethical standards, they should not be able to hold hostage at your own home until your trial.
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
Con refuted all of the Pro's arguments and several of Con's arguments were not challenged. Con also had many sources that checked out while Pro provided none. I gave conduct to Con also because when Pro brought up the supreme court case and con offered evidence against it Pro said "you must live in another country" but then when Con brought up a supreme court case that directly proved his case the pro dismissed it and showed how he only approves of cases that support his argument

Impeached should have accused himself from voting in this debate since we had the same debate.

[1] What arguments were not challenged
[2] I said the Con must be in another country. It was all in fun, the Con did not take offense to it. There was no purposeful attempt to attack the Con's character. I did not just dismiss the Con's point. I said that the point of this debate is that they decided this case wrong. I agree with most of the Supreme Court's decisions--particularly the one that makes us innocent until proved guilty. If the Supreme Court rules that the people do not have a right to own fire arms, do I have to accept this decision because there are other decisions that I agree with.
[3] I understand your a little bitter because I beat you in our debate. I don't care what the score says, you and I know who won. lol, get a life

good day
Posted by moneymachine2004 5 years ago
moneymachine2004
couple of things...

I don't under stand how the 6th and 9th amendment bars the court from confining a person to house arrest. It seems unfair toe consider the 6th and 9th amendments since they were never bought up during the debate. Moreover, home confine was simply a possible solution to the safety concerns that may arise. I also said, that the police could simply keep 24/7 surveillance on the offender without such confinement.

I thank my opponent for a fun debate. I look forward to more in the future.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
None what so ever. Since he challenged me to, all is good.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
To Ore_Ele, sorry about stealing the debate spot after you requested a change to the parameters of the debate itself......

No hard feeling?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Close one I think. Ore has done better and Money did a great job but didn't use any sources. He also interpreted text instead of using its own words. If you do that you need someone to back it up. Pro needed more outside sources for me to believe his side.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost it when he appealed to the supreme court ruling. He can't say that the supreme court is right and make his arguments based off of their decisions. Because then the resolution is automatically negated because the supreme court ruled it constitutional for defendents to be held with no bail. When Pro says the supreme court got it wrong on excessive bail, he can no longer make the argument about innocent until proven guilty (which was his strongest argument) because it was based on the SC.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: "Overall better argument and convincing case" Your vagueness proves quite disheartening, my friend...(Note: this is a counter-vote bomb until Soulreaper provides a better RFD explaining why Pro deserves all 7 points).
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses the constitution and Supreme Courts rulings as the main support for his argument, yet disagrees with key elements of them that negate his resolution. If the constitution and Supreme Court are not a legitimate authority then he has made no case at all, while if they are a legitimate authority then they have already ruled against him. Pro needed to show why he agreed or disagreed with them to have any chance in this debate which he never attempted to do.
Vote Placed by soulreaperjo 5 years ago
soulreaperjo
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall better argument and convincing case
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argues cogently that refusing to set bail isn't the same as setting bail too high.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does indeed specially plead, and thus loses the PoI point, and the arguments vote along with it. Con successfully dismantles all of Pro's points, with unsuccessful refutations. Con provides sources while Pro does not. The resolution is negated.
Vote Placed by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's opening analogies were never fully addressed. Those won him the debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
moneymachine2004Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con refuted all of the Pro's arguments and several of Con's arguments were not challenged. Con also had many sources that checked out while Pro provided none. I gave conduct to Con also because when Pro brought up the supreme court case and con offered evidence against it Pro said "you must live in another country" but then when Con brought up a supreme court case that directly proved his case the pro dismissed it and showed how he only approves of cases that support his argument...