The Instigator
resolutionsmasher
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The punishment of a crime should be equivilent in severity to the crime that induced it.

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 5 votes the winner is...
boredinclass
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,789 times Debate No: 12443
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

resolutionsmasher

Pro

I will make this simple statement to avoid misunderstanding, while I stand that it should be equal in severity, I do not stand for punishment using that same crime. A rapists gets a severe sentence but I do not call for his punishment to be rape.

Other than that disclaimer I will allow my opponent to make the first move.
boredinclass

Con

I thank my opponent for the awesome topic, but as the instigator, you have the burdon of proof and you must also clear up the resolution. But I'll still debate you.

I negate the resolution; The punishment of a crime should be equivalent in severity to the crime that induced it. To quote Mohandas Ghandi- an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind I will present contentions in favor of my negation.

Contention one,
It is ignorant of first term offenders. How could the pro account for the three strikes terms. How could the pro account for a couple of teenagers smoking a joint over the weekend? What would their punishment be? To smoke another Joint? And what about shoplifters? What would happen to them? Would someone go into their house and steal a candy bar? This would only undermine their punishments. The pro might argue that it would significantly reduce the number of murders, But I urge you to consider the number of murders there are compared to how many people do drugs, steal, drive drunk (but don't hurt anyone), deal drugs, partake in gang activity, yell fire in a movie theater, hack computers, and teenagers who have sex. I demand that the instigator answer how they would be solved. Otherwise, he must lose the debate.

Contention two
It has no uniqueness. They already treat people with a consecutive sentence, but from what I understand what the instigator is saying, he wants an eye-for –eye policy. It would severely undermine our criminal justice system. According to my opponent, just locking someone up is not severe enough. According to him, a man who assaults, rapes, performs armed robbery, or any other violent act, locking them up is not sufficient. Thus, a rapist is let off scott-free to rape again. Prison is a system that puts the idea that if you do anything bad, you will go to a "hell-on-earth". Thus deterring many criminals, I'll admit it isn't a perfect system, but it is a lovely alternative to the plan the pro gives.

Contention three
If the pro wins the debate and the fiat is implemented, Then, if any one innocent man is convicted, both the judge(s) and the pro have resulted in an innocent man dying who didn't deserve it. And according to his system, he must be put to death if a result were to come up. It is an endless system that cannot be checked. The pro suggests a system that is not only impossible, it's immoral too.

I urge you to vote con and I thank my opponent for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
resolutionsmasher

Pro

I believe that the opposition misunderstood the statement I presented in the Round One argument. That equal in "severity" does not mean equal in "nature". Meaning that the worse the crime the worse the punishment, but not committing a criminals crime against that criminal. The only instance where the punishment is equal in nature to the crime is the death penalty, because death is the only punishment that is also equal in severity to the crime of murder. Whether the death penalty is moral or not is a good question, but it is a subject for another debate. A rapist should have more time in prison than a petty thief, and more restrictions after release. I most certainly do not advocate raping him as his just deserts.

With the opponents consent, I am willing to drop rounds one and two in consideration for this debate and ask for voters to consider only rounds two and three.

Thank you
boredinclass

Con

How bout we just delete this debate and start a new one? It'll be easier
Debate Round No. 2
resolutionsmasher

Pro

I will again allow my opponent to use his LAST available section to assert his side of the debate.
Comments like those of the previous round can be placed in the comments section to avoid the waste of debate space.

This debate can be thus treated as a 1 round debate; my rounds 1 & 2 vs. his round 5.
boredinclass

Con

then just extend my 3rd contention, this wasn't really a debate, because all it boiled down to was the what the resolution is.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by resolutionsmasher 6 years ago
resolutionsmasher
I can't now that it has been accepted.
Posted by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
I'll take you on bro
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
resolutionsmasherboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely deconstructed pro's argument(if there was one). Con made a very good argument against pro's resolution and pro offered no real argument.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
resolutionsmasherboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: As noted by Grape.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
resolutionsmasherboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
resolutionsmasherboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the responsibility of making a clear resolution and presenting a case. Pro did neither.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
resolutionsmasherboredinclassTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made arguments that showed no understanding of Pro's contention and then forfeited the debate.