The Instigator
PatriotPerson
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Targaryen
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should Johnny Depp Be Punished?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Targaryen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 730 times Debate No: 75846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

PatriotPerson

Con

Recently, American movie star and acting legend Johnny Depp has been in trouble with the Australian government for "smuggling" his two puppies, Boo and Pistol, into the country. The problem they say they have is that Depp did not put the dogs through quarantine before living with them in Australia, which breaks Australian law.

I believe Depp should not face any punishment for doing so.

Rounds:
1 - Acceptance
2 - Opening Arguments
3 - Rebuttals
4 - Second Rebuttals/Closing Arguments
Targaryen

Pro

I accecpt this challenge, and I will be arguing that Johnny Depp should indeed be punished accordingly for breaking the law. Thank you Con for such an interesting topic, and lets get started.
Debate Round No. 1
PatriotPerson

Con

Australian Law:
Law in Australia states that travelers must put any pets into quarantine for a maximum of ten days before they can keep them for their stay in Australia. The government has put these laws in effect because Australia is strict against rabies and other animal-borne diseases, so they want any foreign traveling animals to be ensured safe and disease-clean before accepting them.

There is no evidence that Depp's dogs had any form of sickness or communicable disease, yet Australia's government was so against Depp bringing them in that they were threatened euthanasia if Depp didn't own up to it without punishment. But why would he deserve punishment? All he did was try to bring his two dogs with him.

The Punishment Itself:
An Australian government secretary orders that Depp will either have to spend up to ten years of imprisonment or pay a fine of $340,000. Depp's Pirates Of The Carribean series alone made him millions of dollars, so that fine is practically pocket change to him. If a fine is so little to worry about in Depp's eyes, why even bother?
Targaryen

Pro

Con states that "Law in Australia states that travelers must put any pets into quarantine for a maximum of ten days before they can keep them for their stay in Australia."

Con goes on to mention that there was " no evidence that Depp's dogs had any form of sickness or communicable disease, yet Australia's government was so against Depp bringing them in that they were threatened euthanasia if Depp didn't own up to it without punishment. ". However, the flaw in what Con says here is that there not being evidence as to weather or not Johnny Depp's dogs had sickness or communicable disease has nothing to do with this law that Con had laid out for all of us. Con seems to think that just because Johnny Depp said his dogs didn't have any communicable disease justifies his breaking of the law, and entitles him to not have to to recieve punishment for it.

Con also goes on to mention that Johnny shouldn't recieve punishment because "All he did was try to bring his two dogs with him.". This may be true, but it doesn't exempt him from punishment. Neglegance of a law doesn't entitle someone to lack of punishment UNDER that law, even in foreign situations.


Lastly, Con seems to contradict himself by saying "If a fine is so little to worry about in Depp's eyes, why even bother?".
Well, that's completely correct, if it's such a little fine, then why not just pay it and be done with it? For someone as famous as Johnny, this isn't a very taxing fine for him. (Or maybe it is, most of his latest has sucked). But anyway, just because his negligance towards the law caused him to be punished doesn't give him the right to be exempt from that law, even if he is a famous movie star.
Debate Round No. 2
PatriotPerson

Con

Australian law says that traveling pets must be quarantined upon arrival if they haven't already been vaccinated for rabies and other communicable issues. It is well-assumed that Depp's dogs had recieved the proper vaccinations, so all he would have to do to dismiss any accusations is provide the paperwork/vet statements confirming so.

Australian Agricultural Minister Barnaby Joyce has made statements referring to the situation, threatening the euthanization of the two dogs and saying that bringing pets into Australia requires applying for a permit and "a quarantine on arrival of at least ten days". This is beyond unfair procedures for simply wishing to bring two pet puppies with you on travel.
SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com...

Unaware:
It is fairly possible that Depp was completely unaware of the law. What the Australian government is saying is "smuggling" was really just him trying to take his dogs with him to Australia on a plane. Depp probably had no idea he would get in trouble for doing so. It's like they expect him to read law books on Australian travel rules before he vacations.
Who knows? Minister Joyce may just be attacking Depp for publicity.

Availability:
The fact that the Australian government is showing a range of available punishments from a small fee of $340,000 to ten years in prison shows that they really don't care how Depp is punished. One option they provide is massive and requires a decade of incarcerated life, where as the other is simply a fee that is practically nothing in Depp's mind.

Negligence Of Law:
For example, remember the case of Edward Snowden? Now, you might be thinking like "why is he bringing him up? That's a bit of a stretch." Exactly, that's the point. Snowden hacked into American government files and leaked valuable information. Snowden was sent from country to country, each one refusing to hold his captivity. This was a practically worldwide soap opera detected by one smart guy.
The world governments obviously have bolder issues to mind on, so why worry about an actor and his puppies? The countries Snowden was sent to did not care enough to even accept his captivity, and what Snowden did is obviously of a much higher magnitude than what Depp has done.
Targaryen

Pro

Con says that all that Johnny would have done was show some paperwork that proved that his pets were vaccinated, and disease free. However, even if he did have the papers, he didn't show them, nor did he go under the quarantine process that is needed in order to be able to leave Australia legally. It's evident that only a small action would have prevented Johnny from not being charged, but I don't see how this should justify his lack of punishment, nor how it plays a role in this debate.

Con goes on to talk about the unfairness of the law (or the incontinence of the law, either one), and seems to think that the incontinence of this law should be enough for someone to break it, without getting punishment.

Con talks about the Deeps negligence of the law, and says that it shouldn't be expected of someone to read up on the laws of a foreign country. IT;s very important to read up on the laws of a foreign country, even if you are just vacationing. Laws like these were made for a reason, no just to put another incontinence in someone's life. If Johnny had actually the laws of the country that he was visiting, he wouldn't be in this situation. Negligence of a law doesn't justify lack of punishment.

Con is acting like this law was changed just to coincide with Johnny's break of said law. This law applies to everyone, no matter how extreme both choices are (340,000 fine, or 10 years in prison). And again, Con mentions that this fine is practically nothing in Depp's mind. Even if it is small in his mind, it doesn't mean he shouldn't have to pay it. As small a punishment it would be for him, he still has to pay it, or serve the 10 years. For him, the choice is probably very clear.

Con acts like the entire government of Australia is focusing on Johnny Depp's case. The entire government is NOT focusing on Depp's case, only a small portion is. The case with John Snowden is the fact that he leaked information on quite a few governments. Each government has its own justice system, which essentially led to this "soap opera". Comparing Johnny's case to Snowden's isn't very logical for each legal case is completely different in many different aspects.
Debate Round No. 3
PatriotPerson

Con

"...nor did he go under the quarantine process that is needed in order to be able to leave Australia legally."
Again, its highly possible that Depp was unaware that he needed to undergo this process.

THE PILOT:
None of this would happen if Depp's pilot (who knew he had puppies on board) warned him about the process. So if anyone should be punished, it is the pilot. It is due to the pilot's carelessness (or laziness) that Depp may have been unsure of the law. A simple "Johnny, you need to get those dogs quarantined when we get there" would have stopped this conflict from ever happening.

If I were a head of Australian government, I would punish the pilot, and leave Depp scratch-free, maybe just give him a sort of warning.
___________________________________________________________

"...and seems to think that the incontinence of this law should be enough for someone to break it, without getting punishment."
That is not what I meant. At all. I was simply noting that such law is unfair. With the unfairness of this law, Depp's unawareness, the pilot's disregard, and the general lack of good judgment sums up to a situation that Australia's government should just rub off.

"Negligence of a law doesn't justify lack of punishment."
It is no doubt that Depp is a busy man. Presently, he has finished shooting four movies, and is currently shooting the next installment in the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" franchise.(1)

NEGLIGENCE:
If anyone in this situation is negligent, it is, once again, the pilot. Imagine if you were flying to Australia with your pets, and all the sudden you're at risk for imprisonment or being fined? Wouldn't you certainly want to defend yourself?

Australia is one of, if not the, only country(ies) in the world to have such strict travel requirements. The whole justification of Australia's curret travel sustem is a whole nother debatable topic.

________________________________

"For him, the choice is probably very clear."
My point. Australia's ministers have no business throwing charges at Depp, especially not of that large a range. It all seems like some kind of board game, like Depp has landed on the "pick a card" square. The card is saying "10 years in prison or a fine of $340,000." Metaphorically, doesn't it seem better for Depp to just not play the card and lose a turn?
___________

"Con acts like the entire government of Australia is focusing on Johnny Depp's case.'
No, not the whole government. Just the Ministers are, especially Barnaby Joyce. Referring to my argument from last round will show you that I have already mentioned Joyce's statements.

"The with John Snowden..."
I don't mean to be the snobby guy who corrects everyone, but his name is Edward Snowden. Just a small mistake on your part, its no matter.

"Comparing Johnny's case to Snowden's isn't very logical for each legal case is completely different in many different aspects."
I'm not comparing their cases. I'm using Snowden's case to prove that world governments have worse things to worry about then "smuggled" puppies.
___________________________________________

Well, as I have posted my final argument in this debate, I'd like to thank Pro. This has been one of my favorite debates in a while, and may the better-debated win.

(1): http://www.imdb.com...
Targaryen

Pro

"For him, the choice is probably very clear."
My point. Australia's ministers have no business throwing charges at Depp, especially not of that large a range. It all seems like some kind of board game, like Depp has landed on the "pick a card" square. The card is saying "10 years in prison or a fine of $340,000." Metaphorically, doesn't it seem better for Depp to just not play the card and lose a turn?"

Realistically, he doesn't have that choice. The law is the law. If you want to start a debate on the unfairness and inconvenience of this law, go ahead, but again, the law is the law, and he broke it. He must face the punishment, even when the law's punishments seem to be on the opposite sides of two extremes.




"Con acts like the entire government of Australia is focusing on Johnny Depp's case.'
No, not the whole government. Just the Ministers are, especially Barnaby Joyce. Referring to my argument from last round will show you that I have already mentioned Joyce's statements."

He's an agricultural minister. His focus on this case could be understandable. I'm not completely dismissing that he might be focusing on it a bit more because Johnny is famous, but you can blame the media for that.








"The with John Snowden..."
I don't mean to be the snobby guy who corrects everyone, but his name is Edward Snowden. Just a small mistake on your part, its no matter.


Yeah, that was my bad. I accidentally mixed up John Snow and Edward Snowden, probably due to my intensive reading of Game of Thrones lately. Apologies.





"Comparing Johnny's case to Snowden's isn't very logical for each legal case is completely different in many different aspects."
I'm not comparing their cases. I'm using Snowden's case to prove that world governments have worse things to worry about then "smuggled" puppies. "



Just because they have more important things to worry doesn't mean they should dismiss this case entirely. You can blame the blowing out of proportion of this on the media.




Thank you Con for a fun debate! Good luck in the voting round



Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
rfd part two Rfd: Con changes his argument in round 3 from it not being harsh to John being innocent, Virtullay giving up his arguments. In fact, Proving John was innocent was proved wrong, And had Con stuck to his arguments, The debate might have gone differently. Con Then said john could have sent in papers, In which pro says he did not. This is an execellent rebuttal; Conis saying uder law, john should just turn in papers, and pro says he did not, clearly breaking the law. Con then used far-fecthed arguments like "The goverment doesn`t care how it`s punshment is", which contradicted his other argument, "Prime Ministers shoulnd`t care about John bringing dogs". Instead, he could have defended his point to the bitter end. He then says John could have had a choice in how he was punsihed, In which Pro proved he could not. The mere argument that John could have choosen how he was punished was very strange, And hardly provable. Also, the last argument I just said has nothing what so ever in The debate.

Pro, on the other hand, Sticks with his Arguments, That even celebs should be punished, Australia has to be safe, " Neglegance of a law doesn't entitle someone to lack of punishment UNDER that law, even in foreign situations. ", was not refuted or poorly refuted by con. Con has trouble refuting anything about how celeberities are still people, And Pro defends all of his points I listed above. Con also says that Prime ministers shouldn`t care about if John breaks the law or not, which is absurd, Because PM`s jobs are enforcing the law.
Posted by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
rfd: Con`s arguments are not are centered and organized, And focuses on irrelvant points like "It won`t bother him". Futhermore, Pro does quite an execellent job refuting, While Con changes the argument from "His dogs might not be sick", to "He could have presented paperwork", In which Pro refuted with "He should have Presented paperwork, But he never did, Or never had paperwork."

Con used the only sources, So by default, he gets that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by greatkitteh 2 years ago
greatkitteh
PatriotPersonTargaryenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by doctorcsss 2 years ago
doctorcsss
PatriotPersonTargaryenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate guys. It was interesting to be able to educate myself on this issue. Con wins for sources because Pro did not use any at all. However, Pro wins for more convincing arguments because Con's were rather floppy. They centered around him either being ignorant, or the outcome not being harmful. However, Pro does a good job of rebutting that saying that breaking the law deserves punishment no matter what the actual outcome is, which is very true.