The Instigator
AK-47debater
Pro (for)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
dlw7505
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

The US government should give remuneration to people who were sent to jail and then proven innocent.

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: 12/13/2007 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,736 times Debate No: 384
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (34)

 

AK-47debater

Pro

1. Family-
- Its is unfair to the family because they love the person who was wrongly convicted
- The person who was wrongly convicted can't make money so it put burden on the family
- Convicts whose families are impoverished could starve or get sick

2. Unfair to Convict
- The convict has to endure months to years of punishment because of the governments mistakes
- That is unfair and because the gov't cannot turn back the clocks, they should make the person's life (which they ruined) better.
dlw7505

Con

The idea of the government giving remuneration to people, who were sent to jail and then proves innocent, is horrible.

-Well unfortunately life is not fair, nor is anyone perfect. Families, of right or wrong convictions, will always suffer. However it is not the Government who determines the innocence or guilt of a person. We have spread that power to our peers. If a person was convicted, they were convicted because of nongovernmental persons who decided they were guilty. So should we expect a jury to pay up if they are wrong? Should we expect the lawyer of the defendant to pay up for not adequately defending their innocent client? Should we expect crime scene investigators to pay up for not doing the most thorough job or for being able to point blame in an area? Should we expect the prisons to pay for not giving the wrongfully convicted prisoner a hotel quality stay? There are way too many people who can be blamed. Should we punish them all? No, that would be ridiculous.
-I am however curious as to what mistakes a government would have the power to make, in falsely convicting someone. When a person is convicted of a crime, they are sent to jail to protect society from them. We must think of the common good.
Debate Round No. 1
AK-47debater

Pro

1. They shouldn't have been in the prisons in the first place, therefore the government must compensate them for their wasted.

2. Yeah, life is not fair, but we should try to make our justice system as fair as possible. JUSTICE: fair treatment, that is morally right. (Webster's Dictionary)

3. Government Involvement-
- Employs prosecutors
- Employs judges
- the Public isn't deciding which cases we try, the prosecutors are (prosecutors are part of the government)
- the government runs our Justice system
- the government runs our crime investigations systems eg. the FBI, CIA, and Police forces
-the government is by all means the reason these people were wrongly convicted, they should pay

4. There is no common good when an innocent person can spend twenty five years in jail, working without payment and wasting away, and then be let out of jail and go back to a ruined life
dlw7505

Con

The Government was not in the jury box that decided that the person was guilty.

The Justice System was as fair as possible during the conviction period. You make it seem as though the government set out to purposely wrongfully convict people. The government does the fair moral thing in letting a jury decide the innocents or guilt. They also do the fair and moral thing in letting the defendant remain innocent until PROVEN guilty. They also have the fair and legal responsibility to allow legal council. The Government is already doing their fair and moral part.

Prosecutors only provide current evidence.
Judges decide based on JURY
Prosecutors decide which cases we try based on EVIDENCE.
These investigation systems do more to help society than to intentionally hurt.

The Government does not plant evidence or just decide based on nothing. They decide based on evidence.

In that sense there can also be no common good until, descendants of slaves get their promised governmental reparations. There lives were ruined much longer. Lets be realistic and form a line of people who deserve the money, I'm sure the wrongfully convicted would be at the back.

Something like this would only further hurt our current legal system. Not only would it take money away, preventing improvements. But it would further delay the conviction of truly guilty people, costing even more money.

Money should not be spent on the past it should be spent on the future. Maybe then there could be less flaws.
Debate Round No. 2
AK-47debater

Pro

1. The jury is forced to do this because of the government.

2. Plea bargaining - some people plea bargain and are then found innocent

3. Sometimes there is no good evidence, but a trial still happens
Sometimes there is false evidence or evidence planted by others
Sometimes there is more recent evidence found after the conviction

4. It is wrong to unjustly waste someones years away and then not compensate them for their pain and suffering

5. After getting out of jail finding a job and getting money is difficult. These people need the money to restart their lives, the ones that the government ruined.

6. System is as fair as possible but that has nothing to do with this debate, they make mistakes. A person DESERVES just compensation because years of their life have been filled with pain and suffering in our jail systems. Even a year inside of a jail cell can give you psycological and physical ailments for the rest of your life.
dlw7505

Con

1. The jury is not forced to find someone guilty.

2. The government has nothing to do with a plea bargain. That is left up to the lawyers. (once again pointing blame at too many people)

3. Why should the government pay for a verdict of a jury? If there was no good evidence a decision can be appealed. If the jury finds a shred of doubt due to insufficient evidence, it is their responsibility not the government to find the person innocent. If evidence is planted then the planter should pay.
(once again pointing blame at too many people)

4. It is not unjustly if they were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

5. I could see the government clearing the person's record if they were found innocent in the end. That would make it easier to find a job. That would restart their lives, the ones that the circumstances ruined.

6. The Fairness has everything to do with the debate when you use a definition (Justice) that is satisfied by the fair and moral actions of the government.

You give a lot of information on why they should be given reimbursements, but show no evidence to support that the Government be the one to reimburse them. The only thing you do is point the blame of mistakes to the government when they did not convict the person, the jury did. Why should we punish the government for doing their jobs of protecting the common good? Especially when (and you show support for this argument) they do everything possible to be fair and just in the process of a persons conviction.

Until you show a duty of care by the government of persons after they are released there should be no remunerations.

I would like to close with the same statement that went unanswered last round.
Money should not be spent on the past it should be spent on the future. Maybe then there could be less flaws.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
jhr64487, Military spending? Are you talking the war or the money that goes to the military ?????????
Posted by jh64487 9 years ago
jh64487
the us gov gets its funds from the people, and if its the people that threw someone into jail illegally then yes it makes sense to use public funds to compensate them for their hardships. the point of the court was to insure that people are innocent until proven guilty, obviously if that fails than yes I believe people are entitled to renumeration.

as to the cost of this sort of program, well, it'd be pretty easy to absorb such costs if we toned down our military spending (but that's another debate)
Posted by schoolglutton 9 years ago
schoolglutton
I think AK did a nice job establishing both that an injustice has occurred which is worth worthy of compensation AND that the government was at least largely responsible for that injustice.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
I have to say anyone who is thrown in jail for a lengthy amount of time ... and then found to be innocent , should be compensated.
Posted by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
I would be going at the attorney, not the government.
Posted by AK-47debater 9 years ago
AK-47debater
monetary payment according to the time spent in prison
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
What do you define specifically as remuneration?
34 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Arjunk193 9 years ago
Arjunk193
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Archangel127 9 years ago
Archangel127
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalady 9 years ago
liberalady
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by UN_diplomat 9 years ago
UN_diplomat
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by seldumonde 9 years ago
seldumonde
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by agonzalez_esp 9 years ago
agonzalez_esp
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 9 years ago
LandonWalsh
AK-47debaterdlw7505Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30