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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.