End mandatory minimum PRISON sentences
Debate Rounds (3)
P1: Mandatory minimum sentences have not eliminated sentencing disparities because they have not eliminated sentencing discretion; they have merely shifted that discretion from judges to prosecutors. Judges may have to impose whatever punishment the law requires, but prosecutors are under no comparable obligation to charge a defendant with violating a law carrying a mandatory minimum penalty.
P2: Growing prison populations and costs require the Department of Justice to cut funding for crime-fighting personnel and equipment. Some of the money that we are spending on locking up low-risk, nonviolent inmates should be shifted to strengthening community corrections programs like probation and parole
C: Society must put an end to mandatory minimum prison sentences, they are not in society's best interests.
P1: You are arguing that mandataroy minimum sentences should eliminate sentencing discretion, and that eliminating sentencing discretion is our best interest. Prosecutors should be able to impose whatever punishment they believe befit the crime, not judges. Judges are merely there to watch over the proceedings and make sure that they go accordingly, and make sure that a defendant's rights are not being abused. Essentially, the judge is there to make sure that the proceedings follow due process and are fair. Prosecutors should be the ones suggesting the sentence.
P2: It would be nice is famm.org actually cited/linked citations for their claims. Growing prison populations mean less crime on the streets, therefore less of a need for funding for 'crime-fighting personnel and equipment'.
P3: Funding for community correction programs like probation and parole would be a greater waste of money than keeping lawbreakers in jail. Probation and parole do not affect recidivism rates.
And as if your second premise made any sense; it doesn't. Crime rate doesn't decrease because prison population increases. These are too dependent variables with their own separate independent variables. Crime rate is affected by the number of crimes being committed AND reported. Prison population depends on the number of people being sent to prison regardless of guilt, innocence, and discretion given or not given by prosecutors. There are many factors that affect the number of people being sent to prison. And it is premature of you to draw the conclusion between prison population and crime rate. Bottom line is that sending people to prison because of this mandatory minimum sentence law is potentially damaging to our society because we are in fact spending money housing these prisoners, when we should instead use that money to crime-fighting personnel and equipment.
It is exceedingly difficult to understand your argument. Please consider using paragraphs, in concert with proper grammar.
Your argument is that prosecutors abuse sentencing and judges don't? Judges aren't supremely altruistic beings that only do what is right. Your argument is a fallacy.
Sending people to prison means there will be less crime. I don't understand how you can argue with that. If we locked everyone up, there would be no crime. There is a direct correlation between prison population and crime rate.
Karelyn.Tatis forfeited this round.
oka forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
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.