The Instigator
nsoccer23
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The Rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,867 times Debate No: 6165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

nsoccer23

Pro

I affirm: The Rights of the Victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases

For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations:

1. The question in the resolution is not over the presumption of innocence. The resolution is questioning the prioritization of rights.
2. A felony case is different then a misdemeanor case. Therefore, we are talking about egregious crimes, such as rape, murder, kidnapping.

Value: Justice
Value Criterion: Maintaining Culpability

Justification: A value of justice is implied in the resolution since we are discussing punishment and rights in a court system. Thus, that legal system ought to be just. Maintaining Culpability achieves justice because the only way to properly allocate due is to make a distinction between the legally innocent and legally culpable. If there was no distinction, then justice could not be allocated, and thus there would be no need for a legal system.

Contention I: Prioritizing Rights

When rights come into conflict it is an obligation of any legal system to prioritize the rights of the victim/innocent over the culpable. If the legal system does not prioritize these rights first, then the government has created equality between the culpable and innocent. From this act, there is no legal or moral distinction between the two, thus there is no need for a legal system.
LightC

Con

I'll go AC (Rebuttal) then go NC.

1. The question in the resolution is not over the presumption of innocence. The resolution is questioning the prioritization of rights.

--> I agree to an extent of this observation. Yes it is about prioritization of rights, however the right of innocence is a sub-category of the umbrella of accused rights.
--> Since the affirmative must prove the resolution categorically true then it is his burden to negate the right of innocence to truly win the round.

2. A felony case is different then a misdemeanor case. Therefore, we are talking about egregious crimes, such as rape, murder, kidnapping.

--> That's fine.

Value: Justice

--> I'll agree that this is the value for the round. Whoever achieves a greater amount of justice should win the round.

Value Criterion: Maintaining Culpability

--> I have 3 responses

First, this is extratopical because the resolution states felon CASES. I.e. the culpability of that person has not been decided.
Second, my opponenet has failed to set up a bounds of culpability therefore there is no way to measure it.
And third, even if you don't buy my 2 arguments it still does not achieve the value because justice ought to be purified of procedural injustice and arbitration.

--> You can drop his criterion.

A value of justice is implied in the resolution since we are discussing punishment and rights in a court system. Thus, that legal system ought to be just.

--> When I present my case you will see why affirming actually leads to a more unjust legal system.

Maintaining Culpability achieves justice because the only way to properly allocate due is to make a distinction between the legally innocent and legally culpable.

--> Extend my above attacks.

Contention I: Prioritizing Rights

When rights come into conflict it is an obligation of any legal system to prioritize the rights of the victim/innocent over the culpable.

--> I have two responses:

First, my opponenet never provides an example of where rights would come into conflict.
However, secondly, if this where true then the obligation of an unbiased legal system would collapse because the scale of justice would be put off balance. I.e. right equalization in trial would be put into the side of the victim rather then to keep it equal.

Overview:

1. My opponent is extratopical because he already assumes that the accused is guilty.
2. My opponent never makes a realistic link between his case and his standard.

Moving on to my own case:

I negate: The Rights of the victim should take precedence over the rights of the accused in felony cases

For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observation:

1. The resolution is talking about the trial aspect of a criminal proceeding. Therefore, it is unknown if the accused is guilty or innocent.

The negative values a just legal system. This is an appropriate value for the round because the resolution talks about court proceedings. This value is achieved by the criterion of minimizing procedural injustice. For a just legal system to be achieved it is imperative that the proceedings of the trial follow a just procedure. If not, then the final decision/verdict would be an unjust one, even if it were correct.

Contention I: Resolutional Impact

Basically the resolution states the accused. Therefore, the guilt or innocence is unknown at that point. Therefore, the equalization of rights is undone.

In case turn: My opponenet tries to advocate culpability. However, simply turn this against him using my above logic. He is the one going against maintaining culpability because he is making the scale of justice unbalanced. Therefore, he himself tip the scale in the other extreme against culpability.

Contention II: Court Bias

Basically affirming the resolution undermines the idea of the court being unbiased. By letting precedence be taken of the rights of the victim over the accused is an explicit sign of bias towards the victim.

In case turn: This point shows that my opponenet is going against justice because justice implies looking from unbiased eyes. Clearly by affirming you are taking that unbiased obligation of justice and turning it against itself.

For these reasons for can negate.
Debate Round No. 1
nsoccer23

Pro

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
LightC

Con

Extend my arguments
Debate Round No. 2
nsoccer23

Pro

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
LightC

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
nsoccer23

Pro

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nsoccer23

Pro

nsoccer23 forfeited this round.
LightC

Con

Extend my entire case, and all my attacks.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
It is not possible to win by forfeiting all rebuttals. The Pro case was not viable because no specific issues of conflicting rights were cited. A good case for Pro can be made using the issue of evidence of guilt being excluded on technical grounds. For example, when the accused makes a valid voluntary confession that is excluded because the accused was not read his Miranda rights. There is a good argument that justice is diminished by the exclusion. Of course, it is arguable ...
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
lol ^^
Posted by TheRaven 7 years ago
TheRaven
The case a person knows how to best refute is often their own....
Posted by nsoccer23 7 years ago
nsoccer23
it was a good argument.
Posted by PeeGor 7 years ago
PeeGor
...you just copied and pasted from a previous debate you had with "LightC"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
nsoccer23LightCTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
nsoccer23LightCTied
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