The Instigator
Calm202
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Asolano95
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Are people still guilty if they didn't fully go through with the crime?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Calm202
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2016 Category: People
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 244 times Debate No: 89543
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Calm202

Con

No, people are not guilty. Here are few reasons why people aren't guilty if they didn't go through crime.

First of all, people are only guilty if they committed a crime, a felony, breaking a law, or killing someone. If they're guilty for going through crime, he or she should be sent to jail. People won't be guilty if you don't commit or go through a crime because you weren't involve in that type of situation or you weren't there when crime scene happened.

Second of all, If a person doesn't commit a crime, then that person would most likely to get away from it and didn't go to jail. I mean why wouldn't you? It looks like you were never there in the first place or never been to that place when that crime took place.

Third of all, Here's an example, there's this boy who serves in prison for like 15 years of crime that he didn't go through or commit but he does bought a lawsuit for county. He was arrested for killing a girl, who turned out to be his childhood friend. So guess what? all the evidence went straight through the boy who killed his childhood friend. But the question is did he actually killed her? Did nobody saw what he did to her? Is there a clear evidence to prove that he actually did killed her? Did the police find out about this scene? Did he get away from murder? Has the boy been framed from the crime that he didn't go through?
Asolano95

Pro

People aren't guilty if they didn't fully go through with the crime for one significant reason. That reason is that they simply did not fully go through with the action. If a person goes through with the action and fully committed the crime then 100% they are guilty.
Sometimes a person sits down and actually analyzes what they are about to do and realize that what they are going to do is wrong and they shouldn't go through with it. What if one of your family members goes through an a tough time in their life and they decide that they are going to rob a store or rob someone in the street simply because they are desperate. Now in that moment your family member were on their way to commit that crime and midway through they turned around and went back home. The following day you meet up with him or her they explain their situation to you. They tell you that they even decided to go and rob someone, would you think that your family member is guilty even though they didn't go through with it. This is your family member someone that you love. Do you judge them and say your guilty or do you understand them and try to help their situation and understand that maybe they weren't in the right frame of mind. In my opinion I would never judge nor think that a person is guilty of a crime or even if a false act if they did not go through with it. I believe in innocent until proven guilty and if they didn't go through with the crime they are innocent.
Debate Round No. 1
Calm202

Con

What do you think that someone being accused that would actually made them go into jail. Thinking that a person fully go through crime seems to be a bit hard yet intense because what if one of your best friends got involved in bank robbery, would you be guilty for it even though he or she didn't go through the crime? Basically, is your friend that you're close got involved in crime scene because he or she is concerned with your safety and want to back you up, but I don't think that ever happened to some people who got away from it. Especially, how would you judge them for being guilty and how would you fix this problem. There are many kinds of reason why people tend to not be guilty if they didn't fully go through a crime. One is that a person didn't witness a crime scene, second is if there is lack of evidence that proves if this person is guilty or not guilty, and third is if the person didn't report the crime or not analyze his or her DNA in certain type of objects such as weapon or item that he or she use for a crime. Like if you're about to do something reckless but many people stopped you because they don't want you to get in trouble, would you do it? Would you sacrifice your life? Sacrifice to defend your friend from being accused of? In my opinion, that type of made-up story or act would make everyone think that he or she lied would made you go into serious trouble because there's no evidence that backs up with it. If they're innocent, then they shouldn't involve themselves in a crime at all and there's no evidence that proved that he or she is guilty for committing a crime.
Asolano95

Pro

Another great example to defend my argument is scenario between these 4 kids in my neighborhood who just recently fell into some trouble. One of the guys was sort of like the ring leader of the other 3. He thought it would be fun to beat up another youth who was just walking home from school. The 4 guys would hangout around the school everyday and watch the kids come out of school and they would make fun of each one. One day the 4 of them had planned to jump one them. One of the 4 guys tried to talk the other 3 out of doing that because there were usually cops around and he didn't want any of them getting into any major trouble. The 3 other guys did not listen and did not care they just wanted to have some fun. The boy who didn't want to go through with the fight walked away and went home. Later that day he found out that his friends had been arrested because they badly beat the innocent student up. Does that make the kid who walked away and went home guilty. In my opinion I feel like it took a lot for him to walk away and be the bigger person and let his friends know he wouldn't go through with the activity.
Debate Round No. 2
Calm202

Con

This is my last example for the debate. My example is that one of my aunt got married. Her two husbands are one is a taxi driver and the other one work in business company.
The one with the business company, he robbed their own apartment to get money, but the real question is why my aunt didn't call or hesitate to call the police? Is she afraid that he might beat up, which results in domestic violence? She doesn't want him to get in trouble so he can just robbed her money? Precisely in my opinion, I think he should be guilty for it because he clearly did get in trouble for stealing his wife's money and except nobody catches him, so we don't know if he's guilty or not guilty for going through a crime.
About what I said in my 2nd debate, that person cannot be guilty if he or she have not committed a crime or someone framed him or her to get away from being guilty with proper evidence. I think that for people that are not guilty, they wouldn't commit crime and didn't do something that is bad because you aren't involved in that serious situation and doesn't know what happened to that person, who did committing a crime. Maybe he or she is trying to protect you from getting into trouble or doesn't want you to get hurt because of a person, who may have a record for going through crimes. I think that you should be a better person to not get in trouble for a crime. It's best if he or she gets away from it.
Asolano95

Pro

Living in an urban city like the Bronx there are people in this borough who commit crimes and are clearly guilty of the action. Now along with there being people who are guilty of committing the crime there are also those who don't fully go through with the crime and aren't considered guilty. There are so many people out there who go through the daily of struggle. Some people aren't in the right frame of mind and choose to attempt to commit a crime. But if a person has the inner power to not go through with that crime they are definitely strong willed and most definitely not guilty of the crime. Just because they thought of doing something doesn't mean they are guilty of it. Yes maybe they are guilty by thought but not by action. Thoughts don't land you in jail, actions do so if a person walked away from the situation and said to themselves that this isn't what they want to be apart of and realize the consequence behind their actions before acting then they are not guilty.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by random_noob 10 months ago
random_noob
Calm202Asolano95Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides provided arguments against the resolution. The resolution is therefore negated. Arguments to Con
Vote Placed by breakingamber 10 months ago
breakingamber
Calm202Asolano95Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Pro was arguing the wrong side.
Vote Placed by Hoppi 10 months ago
Hoppi
Calm202Asolano95Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was supposed to argue the other side, that YES people are still guilty if they didn't fully go through with the crime, so he was arguing Con's case. Pro argued very convincingly for the wrong side, and if it were just based on quality of arguments, I would vote for Pro but unfortunately both sides were arguing Con and so Con wins.