justice delayed is justice denied
Debate Rounds (5)
This links shows that 10,000 innocent people are sentenced to jail each year. That number would decrease if the defendant were to be given more time. Some people are too poor to come up with money for an attorney! They should be given time to collect the money.
This link shows that many complaints in lawyers are low fees and lack of communication. That is easily fixed if the defendant and his lawyer have had the time to communicate. To what some people think justice delayed is justices not served, could mean justice delayed, put a man who is accused in prison who is really innocent.
I would like to commend my opponent on an excellent debate topic and good luck!
Here are my arguments for this round:
1. It is very important that all people in the matter get a fair trail. I extend my arguments from last round.
2. One's perception maybe way different than another. What seems important to one person maybe nothing compared to someone else. The public news covers the trail after the trail takes place, and gives you all the details. This makes people think it is important. Crime is wrong, that's why it will always be important. Everyone past the age of 10 knows the judicial system takes time.
I refute your previous statement stating that the public would view it less important
INDIA IS NOT AMERICA! The judicial system in America is a lot different than India! The court cases consist of this
This may leave the accused being clueless about what it all means and how to do it. That is why they need a lawyer. An experienced veteran that got his degree in that field is going to better understand it than a civilian. I also extend my arguments from the previous rounds.
Reasons why cases should take long:
To let both the defendant and plaintiff become prepared
To complete the process.
To make sure we get a fair and decent trial.
If cases are quicker, those things would either really lack, or would not be done at all!
This goes both ways. They both pay lawyer cost. Normally, if a case takes that long, they don't normally have enough proof, or he would be convicted in the first 2 years.
I have proved through this debate that:
Cases need to be long so people can get money for lawyer costs
Cases need to be long so judges and the court can get authorization.
Cases need to be long so the accused and the accuser can communicate with their attorneys.
Cases need to take long for an organized and proper case.
My opponent failed to refute any of these facts while I refuted all of his facts.
I would like to commend him for an excellent trial and good luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: CON wins this one by a fairly wide maragin. First off, conduct. You don't start a 15 minute per round debate in the dead of night with five rounds. As for spelling and grammar, pro had absolutely horrendous capitalization and spelling. For arguments, con wins solely because he refuted pro's, while pro's were just a sentence long. Also, con was the only one to use a source. So a rare seven-point vote for con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.