Independent Prosecutors Should Be Hired In All Cases Involving Police Brutality
Debate Rounds (3)
Any trolling or breaking of these guidelines results in an automatic win for Con.
Independent prosecutor: An independent prosecutor generally is a lawyer from outside the government appointed by an attorney general or, in the United States, by Congress to investigate a government official for misconduct while in office.
Point One: Bias is a total assumption.
The central issue, but the true question is not whether a prosecutor is biased, but "whether there is public confidence that justice has been served." Too often, in cases involving civilian killings by police, there is not.
And I"m going to just lay a question out here, one that is a gaping hole in the proposition"s entire argument.
Why exactly should the people"s choice to be their elected law enforcement officer be qualified in favor of some political appointment?
In other less complex words: Why should independent prosecutors be considered as if they will make decisions better than that of a district attorney? Why is the unqualified public a source of something that we should base this entire case? Their entire case is on one of bias, but there is no real proof of that bias in these instances.
And why is this question even asked? We should be able to have a justice system that is completely fair and not based on the bias of ANYBODY, not even the public.
And may I just mention that the reason the public is being so very loud about these issues that spark this question is to do with the fact that these are rare cases. And if we choose to change the ENTIRE system over the fact that these people are reacting to a rare case, we shouldn"t be so quick to flip the entire justice system on its back because of a snap judgement based completely on a flawed argument and the fact that the only thing solved is certain peoples uninformed, revolving opinions- this is not a good base of what such an important opinion should be decided on. These can just be simple fraud cases, and it is altogether not a reason to flip the system.
Point Two: The verdict can never please the people.
Judge, in our current issues involving this question, again, the only real issue is how the people react. This is not a good way to run anything, because, trying to please everyone just flat-out doesn"t work.
Picture this: Our current issue is the people begging for an independent prosecutor for the assumption that it will be "more fair" and unbiased. If these cases were reversed in the first place, we would still see public unrest. See, if in the first place the officer would have not been indicted and it was because of an independent prosecutor, people would still be pointing fingers, saying that the reason he wasn"t indicted is solely b/c of the fact that the independent prosecutor is just that, independent. That they don"t really know, they aren"t from here.
And this is a vicious cycle, and absolutely not the way we should be deciding these things. If we really want a fair decision, a better justice system, we should be making these decisions off of actual PROOF. Pleasing everyone will never actually work, knocking the propositions entire case off the table.
Why change everything if the only thing we get out of it is the fact that there isn"t cold hard evidence that there are problems, and if we do change, it"ll just keep cycling, and we"ll continue to be so fragile that an attack based on assumption from the people will keep us scrambling after them.
The impact of this is that this will not fix anything at all, and there is no way to please everyone. What we really need to work on is to pay attention to the fact of the matter: Do all these cases turn out fairly? And that should have to do with evidence and facts and proof, not the constantly swaying opinion of the masses.
Point Three: Hiring an independent prosecutor can lead to abuse.
Special prosecutors are created to go after one type of case and one type of case only; they come into office with the expectation that they will "do something." This narrow mandate can lead to abuse.
After the 1972 Knapp Commission documented widespread corruption in the New York Police Department, New York State created a special prosecutor to go after corrupt cops. The theory was that local prosecutors were too close to officers to prosecute them fairly. Instead, overzealous tactics by the special prosecutor led to convictions being thrown out on grounds of entrapment and other misfeasance. (The threat of being displaced by a special prosecutor can also undermine a district attorney"s independence, if the governor removing the district attorney is doing so on political or ideological grounds.)
It is wrong to blame the prosecutor when juries decide not to indict or convict an officer. That judgment represents the jury"s understanding that officers' good faith decisions, made instantaneously in difficult circumstances, should be given the benefit of the doubt and not criminalized, even when the outcome of an officer"s discretion results in an unintended tragedy like Eric Garner"s death.
Judge, we need to take a step back. We need to do something based on true proof. That is what will create a better justice system. That is what we need.If you really want a fair justice system, vote opposition.
Mariodude34500 forfeited this round.
Mariodude34500 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.