The Instigator
Dspriggs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

People charged with terrible crimes where there is no question of guilt shall be immediately charged

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...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2013 Category: News
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 33767
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Dspriggs

Pro

Ariel Castro held 3 women captive and abused and raped them for 10 years and before one of them finally escaped with a child on her side. This is enough evidence to go ahead and charge and sentence him without having to have a trial.
bladerunner060

Con

And how would "no question of guilt" be determined? By the same people bringing the charges in the first place? There is a reason there are checks and balances to the government. Without them, you foster abuse and secret prisons.

He's probably guilty. But he deserves a trial like anyone else. Perhaps there's exculpatory evidence. Perhaps he was somehow framed. We don't know; without a trial, we might never know. And sentencing is often dependent on the details of circumstances; without giving him a chance to express his side, how could an appropriate sentence be determined?

The accused has the right to a speedy trial with a jury of his or her peers.
Debate Round No. 1
Dspriggs

Pro

Dspriggs forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

The burden of proof rests with my opponent. I hope he makes his case next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Dspriggs

Pro

Dspriggs forfeited this round.
bladerunner060

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent seems to have forfeited completely. Rather a waste of my time, but I'll close my arguments nonetheless.

What seems "obvious" at first glance is often only "obvious" because of the manner the situation is portrayed by the one telling the story. The entire purpose of a trial is to give the state the opportunity to show why they think the defendant is guilty, and the defendant the opportunity to show their innocence. When someone is guilty, and knows there is no evidence that can possibly save them, they can plead guilty, in which case their case does go immediately to sentencing.

Remember that, for criminal cases, jurors are asked whether the accused is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", so in principle, they're being told not to find someone guilty unless there is no question of guilt. That is the mechanism we have which is independent of the executive branch which performed the arrest in the first place (and is presumably biased).

The system Pro proposes would encourage abuse far beyond what should be acceptable, and he has made no real case for his position other than opening assertions.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
Dspriggsbladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.