The Instigator
giftedplc123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RepublicanMan
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

the police shouldn't be allowed to randomly stop and search people with out any reports of a crime

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 1 vote the winner is...
RepublicanMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 53584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

giftedplc123

Pro

i feel that it is wrong when people are randomly searched on the street with out the police giving a good enough reason to do the search I believe it is because of appearance and that the police should not be allowed to do random searches without a good enough reason or understanding of the law
RepublicanMan

Con

While I agree that is is not ideal to be pulled aside by an officer for a random search, it prevents a lot of crime. In most public schools, police searches happen commonly at random times, when this happens it prevents drug / substance abuse in the classroom and generally in the building. If you pull people aside and acknowledge their rights, then you can prevent a lot of crime, and maybe even save someone from death.

But with doing something like this, comes compromise:

1) The police can only random search in certain parts of the city or county and certain buildings.

2) The police official may not use brutal force on the individual, they must be gentle.

3) If an issue occurs during the search, the police cannot charge the man and arrest, they may only take them to the PD and have them stay there for emergency search.

4) If an illegal item such as a firearm or an illegal dose of drugs is found, the item will be confiscated and the individual would be put in the PD and kept there for further questioning.

5) It is not necessary to hold hearings in the court of the law for such results of random searches unless the individual requests so.

I'm not saying police should pull over random people solely based on who they are or what they look like, but getting someone body searches (not frisks) set up would be nice. And while we're at it, police should also be on foot patrol more commonly than they do. Most of the time I see any sign of police it would be an empty police car. I wish that by doing this to prevent the rate of crime in most crime-infested counties.
Debate Round No. 1
giftedplc123

Pro

giftedplc123 forfeited this round.
RepublicanMan

Con

Of course the police need to moderate pulling people aside like this, but it would highly reduce crime rate. Case dismissed.
Debate Round No. 2
giftedplc123

Pro

giftedplc123 forfeited this round.
RepublicanMan

Con

You have failed to make a second and third argument, therefore that should count against you and voters should vote against you. Case concluded.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
giftedplc123RepublicanManTied
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: Con's arguments were very weak, and ignored both the Constitution, and the reality (which is that programs like Stop-And-Frisk are not shown to reduce crime). However, we judge debates not on how they could have, or even should have gone, but on how they ACTUALLY went. And Pro abandoned this debate, thus dropping all of Con's arguments. Arguments, therefore, to Con for producing an unrebutted case. Conduct to Con for the forfeits. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.