The Instigator
TheRaceTo9K
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheSpoonyRealist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should be able to kill domestic abusers

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 369 times Debate No: 67917
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TheRaceTo9K

Con

Killing is wrong.
TheSpoonyRealist

Pro

I accept.

The burden of proof is shared. I must prove there is at least one instance in which a dometic abuser should be killed while my opponent must prove that there is never an instance in which a domestic abuser should be killed.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRaceTo9K

Con

Thanks to pro for accepting. I'll get started right away.



== Case ==



Theories of being are necessary before we can justify any ethical or substantive arguments because we must know what should count as units of ethical or political evaluation. The correct unit of evaluation occurs at the level of the deep, or structures. Palermo:[1]

  • the world is composed not only of events and states of affairs but also ofstructures, [and] powers, mechanismswhich govern events’ontology consists of three domains, the ‘empirical’, the ‘actual’ and the … ‘deep’). Theseare out of phase with one another. …, observable events are not explained in terms of other observable events, but in terms of underlying structures, [and] their causal powers, Theproblem is thus to identify the structures … that govern reality and to explain the forms of their interaction.

Thus, social relations exist at the level of fundamental structures meaning a) ethical or substantive arguments that examine individuals are not relevant and b) nothing can be explained absent an examination of the social structures that are its cause. This necessitates an ethical theory of procedural justice, since the structures of criminal justice exist to guarantee a fair evaluation in trial, even if individual outcomes are flawed. Meares ’05:[2]

  • “the legitimacy of the criminal justice system is critical to the system’s proper functioning. … constitutional criminal procedure guarantees … more accuracy in criminal judgments … Fair process norms are … goods in and of themselves … however, … The public is … [also] more likely to support … the criminal justice process … when … [it] is run fairly. … Diminished public support for the criminal justice system, … can lead to diminished respect for the law and, thereby, less compliance … researchers have demonstrated that … people are more likely to evaluate trial procedures as messages … While it may not be obvious how a particular case should come out, it is … always clear how parties should proceed …”

This also turns the AC since failing to respect rights to due process causes more violence through non-compliance with the law. I contend that a violent response violates due process.

First, when the victim takes matters into their own hands, they deprive their adversary of the chance to defend themselves from accusations, present or refute evidence, receive a trial by jury, or negotiate a punishment proportionate to their crime. Without these checks, there can be no guarantee of a fair process.

Second, individuals are subjective so there can be no consistent application of the law without an applied metric. Because victims do not communicate between each other, there is certain to be arbitrarily different procedures.

I await my opponent's arguments, with more to come.




[1] [Giulio, “The ontology of economic power in capitalism: mainstream economics and Marx” Cambridge Journal of Economics 2007]

[2] Tracey Meares [Max Pam Professor and Director of the Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, The University of Chicago Law School; Senior Research Fellow, American Bar Foundation], “Everything Old is New Again: Fundamental Fairness and the Legitimacy of Criminal Justice,” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol 3:105 (2005)

TheSpoonyRealist

Pro

NO ONE VOTE ON THIS DEBATE.

The account in question has closed down and I will be challanging Zaradi formally on his actual account, with the same resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRaceTo9K

Con

TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.
TheSpoonyRealist

Pro

Remember, this debate should remian unvoted on.
Debate Round No. 3
TheRaceTo9K

Con

TheRaceTo9K forfeited this round.
TheSpoonyRealist

Pro

Again, please don't vote on this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
Con is very much like Zaradi.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Executions against non-homicidal offenders generally increases crime (Lott 2007), due to the fact that they have an incentive to kill the person as the crime is the same punishment, and murder may increase their chance of evasion (i.e. no witnesses). So pretty much everyone agrees bruh
No votes have been placed for this debate.