The Instigator
LVdebater01
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contra
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Resolved: The united States government allowing mentally ill defentants to have a lesser sentance

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 3 votes the winner is...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,057 times Debate No: 24098
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

LVdebater01

Pro

First round is pick up. First two rounds are constructives, second two are rebuttals. 3,000 character arguments.
Contra

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
LVdebater01

Pro

I. Inherency

Insane Asylums were closed, causing an uncountable number of mentally ill persons to be released onto the streets. These persons were not given proper care needed for there illness and many became jobless. The joblessness of said Ill persons caused homelessness and insufficant funds for treatment. States set up programs for the ill persons to receive funds, yet the funds were insufficant to handle the growing problem and resources became stretched. Those not already diagnosed as Ill had to deal with not only the illness that they already had, but a growing stigma. Some, but not al. Of these ill persons were violent and the levels of violence were varied. Some ill persons were seriously violent, while others weren't violent at all.

Plan:
Plan plank 1: the united states government will santion a federal policy allowing mentally ill individuals to serve a reduced prison sentence in return for the ill individual serving the remainar of their sentence, as recommended by the pre-sentencing investigation report, in a psychiatric hospital, choose by the judicalial court that the case falls under. Attending phsycian of the committed ill person may not, under any release the ill person until date specified

Plan plank 2: this plan will take full effect by the year 2015

Plan Plank 3: this plan will be funded by a luxiory tax

Plan Plank 4: physicians violating said law is subject to a suspension of license. If the released ill person commits a crime while illegally released, the attending physician will face charges of negligence, and, if the victim dies, manslaughter.

II. Solvence:
Ill persons who commit crimes are subjected to the same sentences as healthy individuals. Ill individuals can go into psychotic episodes where they are trapped Inbetween two worlds, theirs and ours. Their perceptions are severely altered. These perceptions can be anything including what is right vs. What is wrong. In the instance of The State of Iowa V. Mark Daryl Becker. Becker suffered from paranoud schizophrenia. He truly believe that his former football coach was raping him and turning children into 'fish and animals and dead people.' Becker knew that killing people was wrong, but he felt he had to kill Ed Thomas in order to save the children. He Perceived that killing Ed Thomas was OK, but he was still found guilty to life without parole.

III. Significance
Ill persons cause a threat to jail personal. Putting these persons in a residential treatment facility will allow them the opportunity to become better and enter socioty ready to be productive. To date the percentage if I'll prisoners nationthey will, eventually be released. wide is 16% . A number of the individuals are locked up for nonviolent crimes or violent crimes that have small sentences. These persons will be released in time, releasing them has potential to be more costly than enacting the proposed plan.
Contra

Con

Okay. "Let's do it!" - Dr. Phil

C1: Constitutionality

The 14th amendment of the Constitution says, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

--AP Government and Politics, Pearson Education 2009

Thus, by allowing mentally ill criminals have lesser sentences is immoral and unconstitutional. If a criminal gets a different sentence based soley on their mental status, it would violate the 14th amendment and thus be unconstitutional.

My opponent's first plank is something I somewhat agree with. This is NOT A CONCESSION. My opponent shows a background that is accurate, but the means of carrying out the sentence reduces the penalty paid.

My opponent says that a mental person should receive rehabilitation and treatment for less jail time/ other penalty. I agree. However, treatment at a hospital in rehabilitation can be a sentence in itself.

A person can be sentenced to mandatory treatment and/or rehabilitation. I agree. However, it would need to be mandatory in compliance with equal punishment/penalties that a mentally sane person would get as well as rehabilitation/ treatment.

Example:
A person could be sentenced to compulsory drug rehabilitation instead of prison time.

--http://www.drug-rehab-center-hotline.com...
--http://www.avvo.com...


So my opponent basically has contradicted themself by saying they should get more rehabilitation but less prison time. That is not the equivalent to a lesser sentence. They would be sentenced to less jail time, but would also be sentenced to a mental hospital. So, my opponent has not met his/her BoP.

Conclusion

My opponent has said that the gov't should allow mental patients to have a lesser sentence. Then my opponent goes on to say they should get treatment. If my opponent says they should get mandatory treatment, this would be an alternate sentence.

So, I cannot really understand if my opponent is saying they should have overall less of a penalty to pay, or if we should subsititue jail time for treatment. If the latter is true in this case, it is not the equivalent to a lesser sentence, because they would be punished (and helped) by mantory hospital rehabilitation and treatment.

So, if my opponent wanted a truly lesser sentence, it would be unconstitutional.

If my opponent wanted to substitute some jail time for mandatory rehabilitation or hospital stay, it would not be a truly lesser sentence.

Thus, my opponent has not met his/her BoP.
Debate Round No. 2
LVdebater01

Pro

LVdebater01 forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

Extend Arguments
Debate Round No. 3
LVdebater01

Pro

LVdebater01 forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

My opponent forfeited another round. So I extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
LVdebater01

Pro

LVdebater01 forfeited this round.
Contra

Con

Vote CONTRA
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
LVdebater01ContraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiets
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
LVdebater01ContraTied
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: Conduct goes to Con for multiple forfeits. Same with arguments because Pro functionally conceded Con's points by not attempting to argue against or refute them.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
LVdebater01ContraTied
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: FF