The Instigator
The1Joe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime

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...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2014 Category: Sports
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,671 times Debate No: 63259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

The1Joe

Pro

In America, our Justice system says that people are innocent until proved guilty. That is rarely the case, especially if you are a male athlete.

The civilian organizations that athletes play for, routinely punish players for crimes that have allegedly been committed. In some cases, there were not even police reports filed or charges have been dropped but these men are still punished. I think it is unfair.
kasmic

Con

Thank you for the debate and good luck.

Pro says In America, our Justice system says that people are innocent until proved guilty.”

I agree that as far as the U.S. Justice system it should be innocent until proven guilty.

Pro says “The civilian organizations that athletes play for, routinely punish players for crimes that have allegedly been committed. In some cases, there were not even police reports filed or charges have been dropped but these men are still punished. I think it is unfair.”

Civilian orgnaizations are not the Judicial system.

It seems pro wants “civilian organizations” to behave as the U.S. Justice system does. This would be foolish. When you work for a company, weather that is a grocery store, or the NFL, those organizations should be free to hire/fire whom they wish. If an alleged action by an individual is bringing negative attention or harm to an organization, that organization should have the right to distance themselves from these individuals.

This is especially true once someone has been accused of a heinous crime. Companies should be free to suspend employment pending the investigation, lest it damage the reputation or profits of the organization. For example, if Adrian Peterson’s “alleged” incidents creates opposition to the NFL, the NFL should be free to distance itself from Adrian Peterson.

Companies hire employees to generate a profit, they compensate them for their work. If the employee costs more than the profit generated, the employee should be let go. When athletes are accused of a crime it does not just affect the athlete. It affects the company. That is why the NFL and other organizations should be free to determine what they deem appropriate responses to damage caused to their organization by the employees alleged actions.

The resolution that “Athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime” is true when it is applied to the justice system. No one should be punished for a crime they did not commit. However, this resolution is negated when applied to private companies as the damage is done to the company weather the individual is innocent or guilty.







Debate Round No. 1
The1Joe

Pro

I appreciate you accepting this debate.

Although the US justice system is not perfect, in theory and it's most basic principle is based on fairness. Although not attainable in every situation, fairness is not a foolish goal.

I agree that organizations have the right to do what they need to do to protect their image and interests, however the use of this right is often marred with controversies because of the uneven hand in which the punishments are handed out. The decision to punish or to not punish or how severely to punish is purely based on profits, public pressure, and the popularity of the athlete.

This creates a condition of unfairness for the athlete. If sports organizations are going to punish employees for off the field/court actions in such a public manner, a level of fairness should be displayed especially when punishing for an "alleged" crime. A pattern or history of this could open up the door for false accusations against well meaning players and in some cases cause problems for the organization.

One current high profile case involves a player who was punished twice for the same offense. This called into question the process by which the NFL decides their punishments and may lead to the termination of the commissioner of that organization. There is a player that killed a team mate in a DUI accident that is still playing football, but a player gets an indefinite suspension for domestic violence. Not to downplay the seriousness of domestic violence, but both the player and his wife were initially charged with simple assault. Now, this player's life and his family's life are ruined in part to the way the NFL decided how their punishments are applied. If they had a more fair system, there would not have been as much controversy or fall out.

kasmic

Con

Rebuttals:

Pro says “Although the US justice system is not perfect, in theory and it's most basic principle is based on fairness. Although not attainable in every situation, fairness is not a foolish goal.” I agreed last round that as far as the U.S. Justice system, innocent until proven guilty is appropriate. However, Pro stated in the opening round “The civilian organizations that athletes play for, routinely punish players for crimes that have allegedly been committed. In some cases, there were not even police reports filed or charges have been dropped but these men are still punished. I think it is unfair.” Clearly the issue that we are addressing in this debate is civilian organizations not the U.S. Justice system.


Pro agrees that “organizations have the right to do what they need to do to protect their image and interests,” though he does go on to say “the use of this right is often marred with controversies because of the uneven hand in which the punishments are handed out. The decision to punish or to not punish or how severely to punish is purely based on profits, public pressure, and the popularity of the athlete.” Again I stress that employees do not have a “right” to work for a private organization, these organizations do however have a right “to do what they need to do to protect their image and interests.” Which in these cases, is to punish, or penalize the individual.

Pro says “This creates a condition of unfairness for the athlete. If sports organizations are going to punish employees for off the field/court actions in such a public manner, a level of fairness should be displayed especially when punishing for an "alleged" crime. A pattern or history of this could open up the door for false accusations against well meaning players and in some cases cause problems for the organization.”

The damages done to the organization far outweigha the damage done to one person’s job. In fact the “fair” thing would be to protect the interests of the company over the individual as the sum of their interests and rights far outweigh the interests and rights of the individual. Which, again as I stated, the individual has no right to demand a job from a private organization.


Pro says “One current high profile case involves a player who was punished twice for the same offense. This called into question the process by which the NFL decides their punishments and may lead to the termination of the commissioner of that organization.” This is a great example of an organization attempting to protect its interests and those efforts not being sufficient to curtail the damage done by the alleged incidents. Thus, requiring more attention to the incident in question.

Pro says “There is a player that killed a team mate in a DUI accident that is still playing football, but a player gets an indefinite suspension for domestic violence. Not to downplay the seriousness of domestic violence, but both the player and his wife were initially charged with simple assault. Now, this player's life and his family's life are ruined in part to the way the NFL decided how their punishments are applied. If they had a more fair system, there would not have been as much controversy or fall out.”

This is a red herring as it does not tie into the resolution, which again is “athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime.” My opponent is arguing that Companies should be consistent in there punishment. That is a great idea, and may have caused less contravorsy, but we are discussing if it is appropriate for a company to punish an athlete for an alleged crime. In fact my opponents words here pretty well concede that companies should be able to do so, as long as they are consistant.

Conclusion:

Pro has pretty well conceded the resolution, merely suggesting that the punishments be equal as opposed to withheld. I maintain that orginizations have the right to protect their image and their interests, an effective way to do so is to punish the player that has been accused.
Debate Round No. 2
The1Joe

Pro

The1Joe forfeited this round.
kasmic

Con

Conclusion:

Pro has pretty well conceded the resolution, merely suggesting that the punishments be equal as opposed to withheld. I maintain that organizations have the right to protect their image and their interests, an effective way to do so is to punish the player that has been accused.

Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SE2 2 years ago
SE2
Absolutely unfair. But you have to sympathize with the teams management, just the thought of "that guy MIGHT be a rapist" for example could make people associate his actions even if not committed to the team and thus diminishing the character of the organization. Its a tough one and at many times unfair.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
The1JoekasmicTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture