The Instigator
Christopheratheist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Corax
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,831 times Debate No: 17885
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Christopheratheist

Con

This is in response to the Epetition that will now be discussed in Parliament. The petition can be found here: -

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk...

"Any persons convicted of criminal acts during the current London riots should have all financial benefits removed. No tax payer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them."

I will be against the Petition. The debate will consist of four rounds, Please note that first round is acceptance only.
Corax

Pro

I accept your challenge, and look forward to a fruitful debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Christopheratheist

Con

Before I begin let me thank Corax for accepting the debate. Also let me start by defining:
Poverty - "the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor." (1)
Welfare or Benefits - "JSA, Income Support, Housing benefit so on so forth"

Those on benefits can be on them for a number of reasons, redundancy, being unemployed, by choice and need help to support themselves to name a few, this means that the lower classes rely on the Welfare system to supply them with the means to live to pay for food, electricity, their shelter etc. Without this income the consequence would be that they are unable to support themselves and find themselves in a hopeless position, a position I would describe as Poverty as I am sure many would agree. Now take those who acted in the riots and remove their only means of survival, you end up with a class of people who are beyond help who would rely on the scraps individuals chose to kick down to them, in essence starving them whilst depriving them of clothing and shelter.

The problem with this is that it would be counter productive, these people who become desperate and would have nothing to lose, it would increase the likelihood of them committing crime such as theft, mugging, and burglary to name a few. This would then create yet more victims and raise crime levels without benefiting the society in any way.

The second thing to look at is what are the reasons behind gang culture and how does it come about. To begin with we know from David Cameron (2) that lack of fathers can cause this as people begin to look towards the gang as their father in a sense. Another reason is through poverty as people come together as a collective to better their chance of survival. If this really is the case we would only be reinforcing gang culture by removing income from these individuals.

In conclusion to remove the only means of survival from these people would reinforce gang culture and increase crime rates which in turn would create more victims and cost more for the country in the long term than by supplying them with basic necessities. The other point here is that Criminals may be immoral but from a legislature standpoint are still humans which under the Human Rights Act (1998) (3) Which gives them the right to life which means their necessities fulfilled.

(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2)David Cameron
(3)http://www.legislation.gov.uk...
Corax

Pro

I would, first and foremost, like to thank Cristopherathiest for his clear arguments against the petition.

I will first address my opponent's arguments, then move onto my own.

I the three definitions put forth by my opponent.

Rebuttal
"The problem with this is that it would be counter productive, these people who become desperate and would have nothing to lose, it would increase the likelihood of them committing crime such as theft, mugging, and burglary to name a few. This would then create yet more victims and raise crime levels without benefiting the society in any way."

Crimes are committed every day in every country around the world. Criminals have not been shown to be deterred by the possible loss of welfare, and welfarism has even been linked to increasing crime (1). Removing benefits from those who have committed such crimes would encourage them to find jobs, becoming productive members of society.

"The second thing to look at is what are the reasons behind gang culture and how does it come about. To begin with we know from David Cameron (2) that lack of fathers can cause this as people begin to look towards the gang as their father in a sense. Another reason is through poverty as people come together as a collective to better their chance of survival. If this really is the case we would only be reinforcing gang culture by removing income from these individuals."

Lack of fathers is not relevant to this debate. Gangs are a primary source of income for their members, but many of these gang members are also eligible for social welfare. Removing social welfare from them would, in turn, reduce the income of gang members, making it harder to live as a member of a gang. With reduced income, gang members would be forced to find legitimate, paying jobs. (2)

"The other point here is that Criminals may be immoral but from a legislature standpoint are still humans which under the Human Rights Act (1998) (3) Which gives them the right to life which means their necessities fulfilled."

Criminals are humans, and are thus protected by the law. However, by committing the crimes that they have committed, by ruining their society, they have removed themselves from society. This removes them from the purview of society's protection. This is an important distinction. They are protected by the law, but not society. The have the right to be treated humanely, and to be given a fair trial. If they are found guilty, however, they cannot truly call themselves members of society, for they have removed themselves from it, and so they should not be entitled to society's protection and aid.


Arguments
Society should not be forced to aid and protect those who have worked to undo that very same society. If a man burns down your house, you should not be required to invite him back in for tea. If a woman smashes your car, you should not be required to give her a ride. These rioters have burned, smashed, looted, and destroyed everything in sight. They have done immense damage to society, and the people within it. Why, then, should society be required to give them money? These benefits would be payed from the taxes of those whose property has been destroyed. If these criminals continue to accrue benefits, their victims will be helping to pay. In what society is it fair for the victim to pay the criminal?

Social welfare has encouraged these crimes. Social welfare has allowed the perpetrators of these crimes to become unproductive members of society, who eventually turned against it (3). If we cut off this societal income, these criminals will be required to find jobs. They can become productive members of society. Society cannot be expected to continue to foot the bill for these criminals, many of whom have contributed nothing to society. These criminals should be expected to pay their debt to society in full, not to continue taking from it.

Society is presented with a choice. If benefits continue to flow to the perpetrators of these violent crimes, if the status quo is maintained, there is a chance that these events will repeat themselves. Yes, the guilty criminals will face legal punishment, but once that is finished they can go back to their lives as usual, as they were, with no change. Prisons have been shown not to deter crime (4), so what, then, stops them from returning to crime? If benefits are cut off, however, they will be forced to change their lives. They will not be able to survive on society's coattails any longer, and will be forced to become productive members of society. Moreover, society will not be forced to support those who have destroyed their homes and livelihoods.

Let us bring about a real change, let us reform these criminals.


(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(2) http://anthonylawlor.ie...
(3) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
(4) http://www.slate.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Christopheratheist

Con

Refutations Addressed.

Crimes are committed every day in every country around the world. Criminals have not been shown to be deterred by the possible loss of welfare, and welfarism has even been linked to increasing crime (1). Removing benefits from those who have committed such crimes would encourage them to find jobs, becoming productive members of society.

Quote [1] – “Countries with the most generous welfare systems have the lowest proportions of people in prison, and the lowest rates of crime generally.”

From looking at this which is research done by Professor David Downes and Dr Kristine Hansen of London School of Economics which took a brief overview of 18 countries we can see that the correlation between prison rates and crime rates in countries with relatively low welfare spending was considerably higher, whereas those who put more financial backing into the welfare system generally have not only a lower prison rate but a lower crime rate in general, the top eight having by far the safest society. This points at the link again that by avoiding impoverished areas crime rates will be lower across the board. [1]

Lack of fathers is not relevant to this debate. Gangs are a primary source of income for their members, but many of these gang members are also eligible for social welfare. Removing social welfare from them would, in turn, reduce the income of gang members, making it harder to live as a member of a gang. With reduced income, gang members would be forced to find legitimate, paying jobs.

I must thank my opponent for agreeing that the purpose of gang membership is to be a primary source of income, one of which is to take advantage of the welfare system Great Britain currently has in place. And I would argue that it would just increase gang activity to make up for the lost income or the gangs becoming more organized. However let me play with the idea his premise is true that with reduced income gang members would be forced to legitimate jobs. The Job Market is in a state of disarray [2] [3] [4], the jobs are not there to go around which would leave the gangs with the only option of Criminality or increased presence. So the removal of financial aid, would do nothing but encourage the Gang system.

However, by committing the crimes that they have committed, by ruining their society, they have removed themselves from society.

A lot of the perpetrators of crime have had troubled backgrounds, and remain in troubled locations, they may be addicts, or homeless, they may have been abused in childhood which all in turn leads to crime. If we remove them from the society and put them outside the “Protection and aid” as my opponent says, you wave all responsibility to look after them, put them through rehabilitation, and educate them and the like. This creates a “Us” and “Them” belief system which would separate the classes and create more content between the classes, which in turn increases crime against the middle class.

Rebuttals to Opponent Position

If these criminals continue to accrue benefits, their victims will be helping to pay. In what society is it fair for the victim to pay the criminal?

In a Utopian society I would agree with this statement, However we live in reality, and it’s not about what is “Fair” and what is not. It’s about trying to reduce the cost of society towards these people. If we was to make them destitute or below the poverty line then the cost of the middle classes would increase through Police presence required, Damages incurred from increased theft, the cost of the court system plus the cost of any imprisonment or court sanction. So in essence not only would we have an increased level of Victims, but we would have an increased level of public spending, which in turn would increase tax rates and/or deepen cuts. So the answer is a society that tries to keep its costs down, whilst improving the quality of life in the society as a whole.

Social welfare has encouraged these crimes. Social welfare has allowed the perpetrators of these crimes to become unproductive members of society, who eventually turned against it (3). If we cut off this societal income, these criminals will be required to find jobs. They can become productive members of society. Society cannot be expected to continue to foot the bill for these criminals, many of whom have contributed nothing to society. These criminals should be expected to pay their debt to society in full, not to continue taking from it.

Again I point to the previous argument where the society as a whole does not have enough jobs to go around. On top of that employers are wary at best to employ criminals with unspent convictions and in some sectors criminals with spent convictions. Another thing to note is that Criminals have a lower rate of education which shuts the door on many jobs that already exist in the market. “More than 50% of male offenders and 71% of female offenders have no qualifications. Nearly half have literacy skills at or below level 1 and 65% have numeracy skills at or below level 1.” [5] So to remove all financial aid and to then say “Go get Jobs or become destitute” Would be counter productive.

Society is presented with a choice. If benefits continue to flow to the perpetrators of these violent crimes, if the status quo is maintained, there is a chance that these events will repeat themselves. Yes, the guilty criminals will face legal punishment, but once that is finished they can go back to their lives as usual, as they were, with no change. Prisons have been shown not to deter crime (4), so what, then, stops them from returning to crime? If benefits are cut off, however, they will be forced to change their lives. They will not be able to survive on society's coattails any longer, and will be forced to become productive members of society. Moreover, society will not be forced to support those who have destroyed their homes and livelihoods.

This is a repeat of the previous argument but it does address “What stops them from returning to crime” I could go in to how to reform the welfare system so that they are still paid and also would encourage work, however that is not the purpose of this debate, the purpose is weather they should have the financial benefits removed in its entirety.

[1]http://labour-uncut.co.uk...
[2] http://www.metro.co.uk...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[4] http://www.personneltoday.com...
[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Corax

Pro

Corax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Christopheratheist

Con

My opponent offers no rebuttal likely due to his inability to disprove the points placed forward. Vote Con.
Corax

Pro

Corax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
LOL, A few comments ago, and I quote:

" We need to have ten year hundred million dollar tax payer funded studies to figure out why they loot and what hurt their feelings to want to make them loot.:

You are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. You talk in circles and don't even know it.
Posted by Christopheratheist 5 years ago
Christopheratheist
oh, so just sit there and let them rape and pilage and sit on your hands like a F2cken coward.

No you try to find a reasonable balance of punishment and rehabilitation to better the society as a whole. Prevent future riots by these people, whilst supplying their needs and limiting costs incurred. Start shooting them and lives begin to be lost both guilty and innocent, a backwards notion.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
OK soldiers, don't shoot at the enemy they might shoot back. LOL
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"Start shooting Looters and Looters start shooting you." Oh, so just sit there and let them rape and pilage and sit on your hands like a F2cken coward.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
If I am not mistaken those rioters quit rioting and ran away when bullets started to fly. Even still it is morally right to shoot the ones who destroy other peoples property. When anti govt protesters loot, they loose all credibility and are as evil as the govt they purport to demonise.
Posted by Christopheratheist 5 years ago
Christopheratheist
Start shooting Looters and Looters start shooting you.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
You equate the dictatorial govt oppression and murder of innocent civilians to an innocent civilian killing to protecting his property or law enforcement officer killing an opportunistic, looting, gang banging scum of the earth. You are unable to distinguish any moral difference between the two. Very sad, very sad indeed.
Posted by Christopheratheist 5 years ago
Christopheratheist
Also Sadolite does shooting looters works when looters shooting shoot shooters shooting looters
Posted by Christopheratheist 5 years ago
Christopheratheist
Go tell Mubarak hat shoing rioters works..... Go tell Ghaddaffi shooting rioters works.... Go tell Assad shooting rioters work...
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"Shooting them in the face would solve nothing" Eh it would immediately stop looting.

If another looter sees another looter being shot on the spot that tends to deter further looting. "This is a proven fact" Shooting looters is the only viable means of stopping it otherwise they will just take everything until it is gone. And hey who gives a crap about the store owners being forced out of business because of scum of the earth people. We need to worry about looters feelings and rights. We need to have ten year hundred million dollar tax payer funded studies to figure out why they loot and what hurt their feelings to want to make them loot. We all know no personal responsibility is at steak here. They got screwed by the "Man" and or the demonised person or entity of the day. They are just taking what is rightfully theirs.

"And would bring Human Right Injunctions down from Europe."

The looters lost their human rights and became "rabid" animals the moment they started looting. The only right they have is to die in the most painful way possible. Your approach, screw the innocent people and their rights. We need to worry about looters rights. It is your kind of thinking that is the very cause of the whole episode. Disarm the public punish the innocent and the law abiding with legislation that strips them of their ability to defend themselves from the scum of the earth and enable the criminals with political correctness such as "human rights" for looters.

OH and Fu@k the UN. That corrupt POS organization and it building in New York should be torn down. The UN is worse than the looters in Britain. They allow wholesale genocide. And put people like Gaddafi in positions like head of "human rights" councils. You must get your advice from him on "human rights"
No votes have been placed for this debate.