The Instigator
eleavitt
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
lulch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

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...
eleavitt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 318 times Debate No: 66878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

eleavitt

Pro

Although prisons is a place to keep criminals locked up and away from the outside world, inmates are still allowed to have limited and controlled communication with the outside world. The seriousness of the crime depends on how much outside communication the inmates get but I feel as those all prisoners have the right to visits from the outside world under the 8th amendment which is excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
lulch

Con

People that participate in terror activities should not be allowed to have communication with people from outside of prison, as well as minimum communication with people inside of the prison. Yes, you are correct that the 8th amendment would grant this as excessive, but, if information were to be let out from the terrorist inside of prison, it could result in even more terror activities that could be detrimental to the health and safety of the peoples of the United States. Such as if the terrorist that is inside of prison is one of the people in charge of the terror activities and their "Brother" comes to talk with him and gets the next major target for their destruction.
Debate Round No. 1
eleavitt

Pro

Yes, I agree with you that terrorist could potentially plan out other terrorist attacks by having communication with the outside world although that is not the case because everything is so controlled and regulated that there would be no freedom/opportunity for terrorist to interact and talk about planning a terrorist attack. Everything they say is being monitored and controlled. If a family member or friend came to visit a terrorist in prison then they wouldn't want to walk into a place where their personal conversation could be hear and where they could easily be caught. Today, criminals who are terrorist in prison do have the opportunity to have outside communication some way or another and this doesn't lead to more terrorist attacks.
lulch

Con

Okay, what about the terrorists that are not U.S citizens? They do not deserve to be under the same amendments and privileges that the citizens of the U.S get. If they are trying to harm the U.S in any way and are not a citizen, why should these rights pertain to them?
Debate Round No. 2
eleavitt

Pro

Being able to exercise certain basic freedoms is one of the most fundamental aspects of having American citizenship. However, even non-citizens have certain rights and privileges within our borders. I do agree with you and find it unfair that terrorist/non-U.S citizens can have the same rights in prison as U.S citizens. But, according to http://www.lawcollective.org... Non-U.S. citizens who have been charged with a crime have the same rights as U.S. citizens in criminal court, including: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney paid for by the court if the accused person is low-income, and the right to a trial (including a speedy trial).
lulch

Con

Yes, but what if somone on the outside wants to carry out horrible deeds that a serial killer or a terrorist were going to do before they were put into jail. Then they can get the information on how exactly they were going to kill.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ablais 1 year ago
ablais
Interesting topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
eleavittlulchTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. The debate was pretty straightforward with Pro presenting arguments and Con presenting solid rebuttals. In the last round, Pro showed how non-u.s. citizens still have rights while in prison. At that point, Con reverted back to the old argument about communicating bad things, but Pro already covered that by showing how such communication is heavily monitored. Since Con ran an argument which was already defeated in a previous round, Pro is awarded the win. Sources - Pro. Con failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did. This is a clear win for Pro.