The Instigator
Shawsome
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepsikyma
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Felons should be highly punished in the job market

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...
Skepsikyma
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 29359
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Shawsome

Con

I believe that felons should have more specialized programs, and specialized education while in prison so that when they get into the free world they are not in serious danger of falling back into their own ways. Bring it!
Skepsikyma

Pro

I will argue that the purpose of a criminal justice system is to punish those who have violated the rules of the social contract on which a society is based, not to rehabilitate those individuals. I would also argue that in order for objective law to remain effective the values outlined therein must be shared by most of the populace which it governs. Under this circumstance any voluntary market would punish those who violated the law with a certain degree of ostracization. This hardship is an inevitable part of the social cost of committing a crime in any stable society.

If 'highly' in the context of this debate is defined in a way which makes it impossible for any felon to survive after release from prison then I concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Shawsome

Con

Shawsome forfeited this round.
Skepsikyma

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round. I will await any arguments that he may offer in the next round before making mine unopposed.
Debate Round No. 2
Shawsome

Con

Shawsome forfeited this round.
Skepsikyma

Pro

Alright, I will make my argument unopposed. The purpose of justice in government is simple: to punish those who violate the rights of others. In governments formed according to social contract theory, such as ours, the people surrender certain freedoms afforded to them under natural law so that the goverment may protect other, more important rights, such as the rights to property, liberty, and life. The people give the government a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, which would have belonged to individuals in the state of nature. They do this so that the government may, by a system of objective courts, determine the guilty party and distribute punishment according to the law of the land. To say that the purpose of the courts is not to punish criminals but to rehabilitate them shifts the role of government from that of an objective dispenser of justice to that of a simple modifier of behavior while continuing to deprive the injured the right to retaliate against their abuser. I feel that this shift deserves a great deal of justification, which my opponent has thusfar declined to provide.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Shawsome

Con

Shawsome forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Skepsikyma 4 years ago
Skepsikyma
Indeed. What a shame; I was rather looking forward to it.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I know this kind of debate. It's the one where the instigator creates it and never returns. I've debated a few of these myself - literally LOL
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
ShawsomeSkepsikymaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets all points except S&G because Con made no S&G errors; however, I award no points to the instigator in the case of a "set it and forget it" debate.