The Instigator
Saoirsesfather
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hunnydew
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

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: 3/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,694 times Debate No: 22016
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (37)
Votes (0)

 

Saoirsesfather

Con

Hi, this is a mock trial of Jack and the Beanstalk. I will be defense or against the claim that Jack murdered Mr Giant. Please refer to this link for the info: http://www.abc.net.au...

The prosecution must prove each and every element of each offence beyond reasonable doubt.

It is conceded by the Defence that the alleged victim, Mr A Giant, died from head injuries received from a fall which occurred while he was climbing down a beanstalk on 1 April 1997. It will therefore not be necessary to call any medical evidence to prove the cause of death.

I (the defense) am not allowed to use any of the prosecutions material in my debate unless it is first used by the prosecution. Likewise, the prosecution may not use any of my (Defense's) material unless it is first used by me. To further explain, once you use ANY PART of your material, it is fair game to me and vice versa.

However, the copy of the Charage/Fact Sheet and the copy of Legislation and legal notes are fair game for either side to use at anytime in the debate.

The prosecution (pro) is first trying to prove this (murder): http://www.abc.net.au...

If the prosecution feels they cannot prove murder, the prosecution (pro) MUST concede to the fact they cannot prove murder. It is important that the pro is clear about what they are arguing ie- "I do not feel I can prove the case of murder and have decided to go after "Breaking into any house and an committing serious indictable offence." It is important to understand that murder is the charge that should be sought after first, but the pro can bow out and seek the breaking and entering charge at any point in this debate.

If the prosecution (pro) makes no statement saying that they have not taken murder off of the table, it should be concluded that is what they are out to prove. If that is the case, and the Defense (con) wins, they win the entire case and not just the murder charge.

The prosecution will refer to this website for Breaking etc into any house etc and committing serious indictable offence: http://www.abc.net.au...

Please refer to this page regarding regarding the elements to prove murder, self defense, provocation, and break enter steal: http://www.abc.net.au...

The debate (trial) structure will be as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance of debate challenge
Round 2: Opening Statements (No evidence presented or discussed in detail during this round)
Round 3: Present Argument/Evidence
Round 4: Counter Argument/Evidence
Round 5: Closing Statements/Evidence
hunnydew

Pro

My name is hunnydew
Attorney general representing chickens of Alabama.
I graduated top class at SCREW Tyson and chick Fil'a University of law and farming. I recently found that Jack not only killed Mr. Giant but got me drunk and stool my mother. I'm still very drunk not clear what even happened the night after my mother's kidnapping.

DEAR GOD WHY WONT THIS END! CAN SOMEONE GET ME VICADIN!

Oh and I do accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Saoirsesfather

Con

People of debate.org on March 31st 1997, Jack Jones wandered onto the property of Mr/Ms Giant by way of a beanstalk. After entering the house, the wife of Mr Giant informed Jack that he was welcome on the premises. The Defense points out to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that under Section 18 sub section 1 of the Crimes Act, "Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused ..causing the death charged... was done with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person." In order to prove the charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt :

1. the death of the deceased (the Defence concedes this fact)

2. an unlawful act of the accused which caused that death

3. such act was done with;

a. intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; or
b. reckless indifference to human life.

The defense will show the court that Jack Jones did not commit a crime and was acting in self defense. The defense would like to point out that The Common Law has always recognized the right of a person to defend himself or herself against an attack.

Again, he wondered onto the property of Mr and Mrs Giant and was then chased by a belligerent, psychopath who had every intention of causing permanent harm or possibly death. Jack was left with little choice, his life or the life of someone who had no concern for the life of others.

In the coming arguments, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will see that Jack Jones acted completely in self-defense and was left with no choice when confronted by a man threatening to "grind his bones up and eat him".

Thank you for your time.
hunnydew

Pro

Thank you for making your statement.
Hello ladies, gentlemen and that questionable heshe wonder in the back of the jury. I would like to state my opening statement. Well who is this jack, a man who would disturb such a large giant? He decided break into MR. Giants home. What was he trying to do what was his goal. He even was getting a bit out of hand for his mother.
As it seems if you read the short facts about the crime, Mr. Giant never actually attacked Jack. So the members of the jury understand how the timeline of the crime played out.
http://www.abc.net.au...
I hope that the jury will also understand all code and evidence as this trial continues.

1. The LEGAL NOTES and LEGISLATION say that there must be a necessary reason for the defendant to use the argument of self defense.

2. Jack Jones was breaking and entering the home of Mr. and Mrs. Giant.

3. The reason for commenting the crime of B&E

http://www.abc.net.au...

B&E-breaking and entering.
I hope the jury will understand that he was not using a weapon or actually attacking Jack Jones.
Thank you for letting me expresses my opening statement.

(Whisper) Hey Saoirsesfather can the jury see the tattoo of a pony on my a33. Last couple of nights I haven't been able to remember. Jack got me seriously drunk A few days ago. I wonder how that happened.
Debate Round No. 2
Saoirsesfather

Con

The defense would like to remind the people of the jury that the prosecution must prove beyond ANY reasonable doubt that Jack maliciously murdered Mr. Giant with intent.

The defense would first like to call into evidence the statement made to the police by Jack Jones. The jury will be shown by Jack's statement that he was acting in self-defense when he frantically chopped down the beanstalk, which ultimately and unfortunately led to the death of Mr. Giant. Jack was extremely frightened after hearing the terrible, threatening words said by Mr. Giant. Jack is a small boy, not much taller than 4'5. Now, please imagine the circumstances when a man, NAMED MR. GIANT was chasing him yelling, "I want to eat you, I want to grind you up". Any reasonable person cannot see that as anything thing other than a direct threat to life and limb. The fact that Mr. Giant is SO much larger than Jack automatically put Jack's life in danger when considering mutual strength and distinct disadvantages for Jack if the two found themselves in distinct interchangeable combat. Mr. Giant's fist or foot could easily be considered deadly weapons to someone like you or I, not to mention little Jack. Mrs. Giant was also clearly concerned for Jack's safety when it came to her husband's temper. Jack has quoted her as saying "Quick, run like the wind, before he wakes up. Keep that goose quiet." This reinforces the validity of Jack's fear for his life. Given the circumstances, with the deceased's own WIFE showing fear, who of us in our right mind would not have panicked and chopped down the beanstalk exactly like Jack did?

On the charge of B&E, it is clear that Jack was invited into the home by Mrs. Giant, and that she allowed him to take the goose. She told him to keep the goose quiet as he was running away with it, for Pete's sake!

The defense is confident that you, the wonderful people of the jury, will see that poor little Jack was simply trying to please his hard working mother when he unwittingly wandered into the Giants' home. He was then invited to stay, and was given the goose by Mrs. Giant. The jury will also see that Little Jack Jones was only acting out of fear for his life and that of his mother when he chopped down the beanstalk – the only option he could see in his panicked state. Unfortunately, the generosity and hospitality of Mrs. Giant ultimately led to the death of her husband.

@ Hunneydew(Whispers) I think they might be able to see it. PULL UP YOUR PANTS BEFORE THE NEXT ROUND!
hunnydew

Pro

Thank you sir for posting.
1.Mrs. Giant- I would like to bring up Mrs. Giant's interview. She said and I quote "Who are you, get out" I don't know about you but that doesn't seem like she was welcoming Jack Jones into her home. She also responded to Jack Jones by saying "Never mind that, if my husband sees you he will eat you. Now jury do you think that he was very aware of what would happen to him if he did not leave the first two times she told him. Since this guy knows what he was getting into he should have left if he did not want any harm. As the wife of Mr. Giant she was one of the owners of the home. She had every right to tell him to "Get out". The reason for saying that is because she never wanted a fight to go down. According to one of the home owners he was never welcomed.
http://www.abc.net.au...

2.Jack's actions- I would like to say there was nothing wrong about climbing up a bean stock that was on his mothers property, but once he got to the top he found a house. People and that dog of a person of the jury do you think that Jack Jones would do anything to not be charged with the crimes. He would lie if had to. So just think about his interview. He did not ask for permission to enter the house. He took the goose instead of hiding. He most likely did this action out of greed. He use the axe without warning Mr. Giant, Jack's action caused the death of Mr. Giant.

3.Why Jack Jones most likely lied- Let me bring up Jack Jones's mother, Ms Nora Jones She said and I quote "My son, Jack, has often been in trouble and has a tendency to make up stories and tell lies" She as one of the people who know him best said that he had a history of lying. Now since I have brought up this info up it seems that he could have been lying at the interview.
http://www.abc.net.au...
4.Albert Morse- He knew jack is a trouble maker and when he arrested him Jack said that he never wanted to kill the giant. Then once he interviewed Jack's mother she stated that he said he said "I climbed up a beanstalk and found a giant's house and then the giant chased me and he is going to eat me. I am very frightened. I must get the axe and chop down the beanstalk and kill the giant."

http://www.abc.net.au...

5.Conclusion- His mother stated that he had a history of lying, and stated that jack wanted to kill the giant. Mrs. Giant stated that she said get out very clearly. She also tooled him to hide once he came down but he did not listen.

Ps don't worry the guy at Burger king gave me some cloths, and burger.
Debate Round No. 3
Saoirsesfather

Con

Thank you for posting.

The defense would like to follow up on the statement given by Mrs. Giant. It's true, Mrs., Giant said, "who are you get out of here". However, when little Jack was confronted by here (and we're quoting Mrs. Giant from her statement) little Jack replied, "Please Mrs., I just want something to eat." If you look at the statement given by Mrs. Giant, you'll see that she was legitimately worried for the welfare of little Jack. When Jack said he was just hungry, she replied, ""Never mind that, if my husband comes down, he will eat you…"

A moment later, she heard Mr. Giant coming downstairs and was so terrified for the welfare of little Jack; knowing full well that the Giant would eat him, she hid the boy in her cupboard. She then left it open a crack so that the boy could breathe.

Ladies and gentleman, its obvious that Mrs. Giant cared for the boy, so much so that she allowed him in her house and hid him from a GIANT psychopath.

After hiding in the cupboard for awhile, Jack noticed the goose, with the golden egg that had been laid. Once the giant had fallen asleep, Jack decided to grab the goose and leave. Mrs. Giant saw little Jack and whispered, "Quick, run like the wind, before he wakes up. Keep that goose quiet."

As you can see, Mrs. Giant was concerned about what a man that kills without reason would do to a little boy who was hungry. She knew that her husband and herself where well off and even let the small boy take the golden egg laying goose.

The prosecution said, and I quote, "He would lie if had to. So just think about his interview. He did not ask for permission to enter the house." That is true, jack did not necessarily ask for permission to enter the house, but once he was inside, Mrs Giant decided to ensure that his safety was her top priority. Did Mrs. Giant attempt to kick Jack out after understanding how belligerent Mr Giant was? Did Mrs. Giant call Mr. Giant? Did Mrs. Giant call the police? The answer to those questions is an unequivocal no. NO. Therefore, one would have to assume that she was concerned for the small boy and wanted to ensure that he was kept safe.

The defense would like to touch on Albert Morse's statement. We would like the good ladies and gentleman of the jury to understand that whether Jack was troubled as a younger boy is circumstantial and has little bearing on this case.

After looking at the sworn statements of Mrs. Giant and little Jack Jones, we can see that Jack was in fear of his life. That he was given no other choice when A man (quoted by Mrs. Giant) was yelling, ""I will carve you up. I will crunch your bones to make my bed." Ladies and gentleman, does that sound like a man trying to defend his property? Moreover, the giant was on the beanstalk when he fell. If he was concerned about his property, why did he not call the police rather than yelling death threats? Jack was no longer on the property of Mrs. Giant and yet this man was chasing little Jack, yelling death threats.

This is an obvious case of self-defense.

IMPORTANT: READ BELOW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: READ BELOW

The defense would like the jury to see that the prosecution violated the rules of this case and used a witness they had no access to. The rules clearly state, "I (the defense) am not allowed to use any of the prosecutions material in my debate unless it is first used by the prosecution. Likewise, the prosecution may not use any of my (Defense's) material unless it is first used by me. To further explain, once you use ANY PART of your material, it is fair game to me and vice versa.

However, the copy of the Charge/Fact Sheet and the copy of Legislation and legal notes are fair game for either side to use at anytime in the debate."

Therefore, ALL THE INFO THE PROSECUTION USED BY MRS NORA JONES WILL BE COMPLETLEY THROWN OUT AND DISREGARDED. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the prosecution cannot be used because it is nearly completely based on a statement that could not be used by the prosecution.
hunnydew

Pro

hunnydew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Saoirsesfather

Con

Ladies and gentleman of the Jury. I am very tired and have been extremely busy; for that I apologize. However, please remember what is what here. Jack did not murder that giant. He was running for his life, doing everything he could to get away.
hunnydew

Pro

hunnydew forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Saoirsesfather 5 years ago
Saoirsesfather
I completely agree with you...However, you gotta talk to my lawyer (literally). Family law (to some extent, criminal law) is VERY similar. Moreover, think about the 5th amendment. There are plenty of real world examples where bringing specific evidence or calling a specific witness is considered damming to your case; which means you don't risk using that witness or using that evidence. Think about the OJ Simpson trial. The prosecution should have NEVER used detective Mark Fuhrman or anything he had to say...Once the defense got a hold of him, the entire LAPD was portrayed as a group of racists out to crucify a black man.

In regard to this, this is the best way to replicate the legal process so each side can use some tactic. I will be more than happy to talk about how that can play out when the "case" is over.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
=O madness. Without all the evidence neither side would mount anything substantial case-wise.
Posted by Saoirsesfather 5 years ago
Saoirsesfather
The defense cannot comment on which round we plan to use which witness. ;) However, neither side is required to use any of their witnesses or their material.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Yeah
Posted by Saoirsesfather 5 years ago
Saoirsesfather
Ms Jones's statement?
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
*were you?
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
were gonna save it for round 4?
Posted by Saoirsesfather 5 years ago
Saoirsesfather
The defense will be replying in a few hours. We will also point out that the prosecution used the statement of Mrs Nora Jones which was OUR witness and could not be touched by the prosecution until we used her statement first.

Unfortunately, the statement of Mrs Nora Jones cannot be used by you and is not admissiable AT ALL in the third round by the prosecution. The defense asks the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to review the rules to this trial: "I (the defense) am not allowed to use any of the prosecutions material in my debate unless it is first used by the prosecution. Likewise, the prosecution may not use any of my (Defense's) material unless it is first used by me. To further explain, once you use ANY PART of your material, it is fair game to me and vice versa."
Posted by hunnydew 5 years ago
hunnydew
well i found out what the hell was in the trunk, and it was not a small asain it was a mexican. and the grils name is Bob. all i have to do is fined out the location of my mother and how the hell i ended up in a car thats not mine.

I just hope KFC is not hunting her.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Excellent job thus far to both of you ;)
No votes have been placed for this debate.