The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

justice delayed is justice denied

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,473 times Debate No: 42766
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




if justice is being delayed then it is surely being denied.Many may say that the person should get time to defend himself, but when the case goes on and on a time comes when people do not have enough time nor money to continue the case therefore, the justice is no longer within there reach.


People need time to organize a lawyer to have an experienced lawyer inform them of their rights and tell them when their rights are being violated. I accept this debate!
Debate Round No. 1


if people need to arrange lawyers it will take them no more than a month.It will not take time.but what is wrong is that because of such excuse cases are delayed by more than 2 months now that is surely wrong

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!
Debate Round No. 2


but what about those people who are fighting for their rights the more time it takes the more it forces them to withdraw because of lack of money to provide lubrication. The more time it takes the less serious the matter seems less important to the public.


I would first like to correct an error last round. My auto correct changed high to low literally I meant to say lawyers have high rates.I don't know why it did that.
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
Debate Round No. 3


well you can visit to India and see the system here. When a crime is committed the people are all in rage but after a few years when the judgement comes people are not much interested, thousands of cases can be seen as example


The big reason.

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:
Proper authorization
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!
Debate Round No. 4


but,because of such reasons a case should hardly last for a year then what happens to those cases which are delayed by three or even four years. The victims are all left with nothing but hope that they will get their justice. But, what about those people who can not afford lengthy trials? these people get nothing.


First I would like to congratulate you on an excellent point.
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.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
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.