The Instigator
chansena
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

The Parole Board has failed in Protecting the Community

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 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 67994
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

chansena

Con

The parole board has a duty of protecting the community not endangering it, so why are giving parole to murders and sex offenders who will get parole --> re offend --> kill/murder or rape someone and then back in jail when they should not receive parole in the first place
Zarroette

Pro

Thank you, chansena, for instigating this debate.

I think, based on my opponent's opening round arguments, that my opponent is looking to affirm the resolution, as he/she argues that the Parole Board has failed to protect the community. Due to this, my opponent has the burden of proof to affirm the resolution.

Since "failed" has not been defined, the debate will be around what best qualifies as a failure.

So, I await my opponent's arguments that aim to affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
chansena

Con

chansena forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Pro

I will now make my own arguments against the resolution.


Negation Case (since Con is actually Pro)


P1: The function of a Parole Board

As an example, I will use the Adult Parole Board of Victoria [1].

The aim of the board, as stated on the official website: "The Adult Parole Board of Victoria plays an important role in the Victorian criminal justice system by managing the appropriate release of offenders on parole orders to enhance the safety of the Victorian community. In all decision-making, the Board’s most important consideration is community safety."

The functions of this board, taken from the website:

"The role of the Adult Parole Board is to make independent and appropriate decisions in relation to:

  • release of prisoners on supervised conditional release
  • cancellation of orders and return of offenders to prison custody
  • submission of reports to the Minister for Corrections as required by legislation

The Board may:

  • grant a prisoner release on parole
  • deny release on parole
  • defer consideration until a later date
  • cancel an offender's parole"

So, a Parole Board is a governing body designed to do these things.





A1: Parole Boards are beneficial to a community

Parole gives prisoners an incentive to behave and re-enter the community. Especially for younger people, to be stapled with a full-time sentence can ruin a life, for reasons like businesses not wanting to hire criminals. Without parole, prisoners, at the end of their sentences, would be without supervision and incentive to behave. With the Victorian example I am using, there is extensive measures taken to help prevent re-offence, too [2]. Therefore, using a Parole Board, a society can have effective rehabilitation that helps the community, as well as remove those who are likely to re-offend.



C: Brief Conclusion

Basically, Parole Boards are highly regulated and have strict rules enforced so as to avoid careless release of prisoners. They are not, as my opponent suggests, frivolous with their releases terms. Furthermore, Parole Boards give people second chances and incentives in the criminal justice system. For these reasons, it is clear that the Parole Board has not failed in protecting the community.

I await my opponent's affirmative case. Until then, the resolution is negated.




References

[1] http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au...
[2] https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au...
Debate Round No. 2
chansena

Con

chansena forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
chansena

Con

chansena forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
chansena

Con

chansena forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You may have gotten pro and con mixed up.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
chansenaZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited nearly every round in this debate. S&G - Pro. Con failed to use proper grammar and punctuation in the opening round, whereas Pro had no errors of the like. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to present any case whatsoever, nor did Con present any rebuttals to the arguments presented by Pro. Due to Pro standing unchallenged, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con did not utilize any sources in this debate whereas Pro did.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
chansenaZarroetteTied
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: Forfeit for Con
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
chansenaZarroetteTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
chansenaZarroetteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con already had inadequate grammar in his first round, and ff'ed the rest. Pro was the only one who constructed any arguments, and implemented sources as well, giving her the full 7-point win.