The Instigator
getthegrade
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

if you get imprisoned for life, should it mean you stay in for life?

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...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 54510
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

getthegrade

Pro

yes, if the crime was that serious that you got sentenced to life, you should do the time.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate.

In order to win, I must negate the resolution in some way. I can do that by appeal to a simple principle backed by an example. I'd like to note at this point that, because Pro bears the burden of proof by virtue of his positive statement, he must be able to refute all of my arguments and refute any exception I may offer. If he cannot do that, the resolution falls.

Here's the principle: simply being sentenced to life in prison does not mean that you have committed the crime, and therefore you should not be obligated, merely by virtue of having been sentenced to life without parole, to serve your term.

This is to say that, if you are sentenced to life in prison, but are later found out to have been innocent, you should be released because you did nothing wrong.

Let's consider an example of James Bain, who was exonerated by DNA evidence after having spent 35 years in prison (http://www.businessinsider.com...). He was accused and convicted of breaking and entering, kidnapping, and rape, but was found a whopping 35 years later to have done nothing.

Of course this innocent man should not be forced to undergo a punishment for absolutely no reason. What's the logic behind that? We have to accept, like blind sheep, that the system is perfect? This is actually the logic behind groups like the Innocence Project, whose goal is to exonerate people so that they won't end up on death row. Indeed, we're talking about life without parole, not death row, but the same logic applies: the justice system is flawed, in some way biased (for instance, minorities are disportionated incarerated for non-violent crimes such as drug possession), and is suspectible to error. So we should have a mechanism to remedy it when it does in fact fail.

Pro's system removes that mechanism entirely. So unless he can prove that Mr. Bain and others like him deserve to be imprisoned forever even after having been proved innocent, he cannot win this debate nor does his resolution hold.
Debate Round No. 1
getthegrade

Pro

getthegrade forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
getthegrade

Pro

getthegrade forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
getthegrade

Pro

getthegrade forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
getthegrade

Pro

getthegrade forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending all arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by The_Intangible 3 years ago
The_Intangible
Pro worded his argument poorly, and inadvertently took up an indefensible position, which Con took advantage of.
Posted by ChadIrvin 3 years ago
ChadIrvin
Why post a debate if you have nothing to say in your favor? Perhaps just a rant by pro?
Posted by The_Intangible 3 years ago
The_Intangible
Open mouth, insert foot.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Dishoungh 3 years ago
Dishoungh
getthegradeJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Con before and after the debate. Conduct for Con because Pro forfeited Rounds 2-5. Obviously, Con made the better argument and he had more sources.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
getthegradeJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
getthegradeJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
getthegradeJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: FF, Only one to make arguments and use sources