The Instigator
sissi974
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mister_Man
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

You either reject the idea that the government should automatically apologize to victims of miscarri

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 2 votes the winner is...
Mister_Man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 430 times Debate No: 62188
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

sissi974

Con

I'm against that, I don't think States should apologize for miscarriage of justice. There are matters more important to think about.
Mister_Man

Pro

This is interesting, thanks for creating it.

I'll allow you to start off with your own points, but I'll make a couple of mine briefly.

I'm not sure where you live, but in a suburb around the city I live in, a man was recently set free from prison even with the judicial system knowing well that he is likely to be a repeat offender. And he ended up killing a girl [1].

This is what I would consider a miscarriage of justice. And out justice systems should apologize, as they allowed a known rapist to interact with the general public, which led to the death of an innocent girl. For anyone to brush it off because "there are worse things happening" is not only unrealistic, but detrimental to society. We won't get anywhere by constantly saying "worse things are happening, so don't worry about this horrible thing."

Also, apologizing isn't a bad thing. Even if they don't make an effort to do anything other than catch the guy, acknowledging their mistakes and showing the general public that they truly care and understand they made a mistake and will not let anything as horrible as this happen again is a good thing. It shows the government cares when something traumatic happens.

I'm not done.

The main definition for miscarriage of justice is when someone is wrongfully accused and sentenced for a crime. This is also disputed by my first couple paragraphs - sentencing someone to jail or prison who is innocent is a horrible thing, and can seriously mess that person up, possibly for life. Acknowledging a mistake and finding any way they can to repay or console the victim is important, and shows that the government/judicial system isn't going to just lock whoever up and not care if they got the wrong guy. And once again, just because worse things are happening in the world or even in the country, doesn't mean "little" things that affect individual communities aren't important.

Thanks, hopefully this was a good start to get the ball rolling!

[1] http://www.news1130.com...
Debate Round No. 1
sissi974

Con

I'm from France, you're right but in our system, State is surpassing itself to make sure that everyone is alright. I think that the notion of "State" is unclear here. I don't know if it means that presidents or government should apologize for miscarriage of justice. For me, judges or the police should apologize because it's their first fonction. You can not blame the State for the dysfunction of its services. As I said, States are already tied up with social problem and reform that must be taken.
Mister_Man

Pro

Alright I see what you mean. You're basically saying the cops or even judicial systems can or should apologize, but higher up authorities such as the President or Government Officials should focus on more important things that pertain to the country/economy or whatever instead of an isolated incident?

This makes sense, however acknowledging that the people that work for you made a mistake, which cost someone their life (jail can really damage or even kill someone), and apologizing for it, not only clears tension in the air, as the citizens know the government doesn't just not give a crap about it's people, but it also slightly evens out the differences between Government and Citizens. If my brother had been wrongly accused, and nobody of great importance seemed to care, I'd have a bit of an issue with the government. Of course I wouldn't be going out of my way to make anti-government groups or things like that, but I wouldn't be happy with it. If they had gone out of their way to send someone of importance to personally apologize on behalf of the state, I would feel a lot better, as I know the Government cares about the well being of it's citizens.

Sure, taking care of more important things, like ISIS, or debt, or welfare, etc. is important, but if nobody focuses on the little things, such as miscarriages of justice, the working class (and other citizens) won't have much reason to support the government, as there aren't really any noticeable changes or actions the government is taking to ensure the well being and happiness of it's citizens.

I hope this makes a bit more sense? I'd like to hear your side of this!

Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 2
sissi974

Con

If States always interfere in judiciary cases, this may make confusion between judicial power and executive power. These two powers must be separated as well. It's true that States should apologize for some politics cases such as Birmingham Six or the Guildford four. Miscarriages of justice in these cases are the result of the politics lead by the british government. At that time, the IRA was the arch-enemy and the british government wanted to reassure the population by finding person responsible to some bombing. Some arrestation had be done by the british police hastily.
These cases are linked to government policies, so if mistakes have been committed, States should apologize for that because it's the consequence of their policies..
Moreover, I think that States already apologize when they award damages to the victims of miscarriage of justice in a way.
Mister_Man

Pro

Except there's a big difference between interfering and commenting on.

For a state to apologize gives the impression (at the least) that the Government does care. They aren't interfering with the judicial system by apologizing, they're showing they respect the citizens and understand someone who works for/with them made a big mistake. We will still understand the differences between judicial and executive power. If the government had taken over and held their own court hearing and not allowed any type of jury or judge other than a government official to make decisions, then I would agree with you, but that's a lot different than commenting on a miscarriage of justice.

Thanks for your example, it's a good one. However my point still stands. The government should not only apologize for their own mishaps, especially when judicial systems work under/for the government. If you owned a business and one of the mail boys accidentally sent mail to a wrong client, would you think it makes more sense to personally call that client, as CEO/Owner, and apologize on behalf of your mail boy, or just get your mail boy to apologize? I would say it would be more personal and more effective if the CEO apologized (as well as the mail boy), as a higher up in the business taking responsibility and understanding of a mistake would show that he/she cares about their clients, and they aren't just some person to make money off of.

Compensating someone for a loss or hardship is a lot different than personally apologizing. It's a human emotion thing - human interaction is usually better than no human interaction.

This is a good topic, thanks again for addressing it.
Debate Round No. 3
sissi974

Con

sissi974 forfeited this round.
Mister_Man

Pro

Last chance!
Debate Round No. 4
sissi974

Con

sissi974 forfeited this round.
Mister_Man

Pro

Well have a good day sir.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
What is the resolution supposed to say? O_o
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
sissi974Mister_ManTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture from con, but I think his arguments were ultimately stronger. Pro's rebuttals to the separation of the executive and judiciary wings of Government was unconvincing.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
sissi974Mister_ManTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture