The Instigator
FanboyMctroll
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
billsands
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Criminals should be tattooed on the face, Upon leaving prison

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 118695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

FanboyMctroll

Pro

Criminals should be tattooed on the face indicating the crime they have perpetuated. This would let the general public be aware of a criminal in their vicinity once released in the general public. The criminal would have their forehead tattooed with "Killer" or "Burglar" or 'Rapist" right on their face, This would alert the general public that the criminal is around. Since the recidivism rate is at 89%, We could lower that number by keeping a vigilant eye on the criminals in public and be aware of possible crimes being committed by the tattooed criminal.

This would be a great incentive at public awareness of criminals in society.

Lets identify the criminal and be vigilant around them, Since they will end up in jail again anyways, This could be an early detection system to warn the public. You see a criminal with the word "pedophile" on their forehead, You know to keep your kids away from them. You see a person with the word "Robber" on their forehead come into your store, You can gran that shotgun under the counter and be prepared. You see "Killer" on someone's forehead, You can escape or get out of the area of the criminal. You see a person with "Burglar" on their forehead loitering in your neighborhood, You can lock your door and be more vigilant as they are probably planning to break into a house.

By tattooing the criminals we can be more proactive to the criminals who choose to be criminals for life and be more vigilant in society. This would be a great early crime prevention initiative.
billsands

Con

Are you mad? It could be you with the tatoo, Think of that, You nver know. Also how would such a person ever be rehabilitated, Shame on you for even suggesting such barbarism, You know it is unconstitutional i think it is the eighth amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment if this isnt that then what is?
Debate Round No. 1
FanboyMctroll

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent in taking up this debate. Ok so lets get to debating

Con mentions that I could have a tattoo. Well that would never happen since I don't have a juvi record, Or an adult criminal record and never will. (I'm not a criminal, But a law abiding citizen)

Con mentions rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of criminals is impossible. Certain people are certain ways and they will NOT change and will always be criminals. That is why criminals have long rap sheets, They are in and out of jail constantly as shown by the recidivism rate in the USA.

According to the National Institute of Justice, About 68 percent of 405, 000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, And 77 percent were arrested within five years. 77% percent rate! , That means 3/4 of convicts end up back in jail anyways, And this is my main reason for tattooing them in the first place. To let the general public be aware that a criminal is around.

Con states that this is cruel and unusual punishment, HOW? It's a tattoo! ? It might hurt at first but that's it, It's not like we are torturing, Whipping or waterboarding anyone here, You just get a "Criminal stamp" brand to let the general public be aware that a criminal is around. The general public has the right to know when a person who does not want to abide by the laws of the country is within vicinity and to let the public be more vigilant of a possible crime being committed. This is an incentive to let the public be aware as the criminal will reoffend again, Stats show 77% they do.

Now the tattooing would only be instituted on criminals with indictable offences with over 2 years incarceration. I'm not proposing this for summary convictions for speeding, Traffic tickets or drunk in a public place. I'm talking about pedophiles, Rapists, Killers, Robbers, Money launderers, Fraud specialists, All serious criminal offences.

Just to let Con know this method of tattooing criminals has been used in ancient times in Rome, Greece and during the Edo period in Japan, This is not anything new. Also there are gangs right now who have face tattoos in prison, The Russian mobs and gangs, The Yakuza and the Triads. Tattooing the face is not a new concept.

I just propose it as a warning system for the general public, As a common citizen could identify and be more vigilant around someone with a "killer" tattoo, Or not do financial services with someone who is dressed in a suit but with a "Fraudster" tattoo on their forehead.

This proposal of the tattooing is a positive initiative for the public and general awareness, And besides who cares about the criminals, They lost their rights when they committed a crimes and were found guilty by their own peers and judge in the courts. Tattooing is not cruel punishment, People do it for pleasure all the time.

When I become President, This will be one of my major domestic policy initiatives on my campaigning platform.
billsands

Con

I would respectfully remind the opposition that we do not live in a dactatorship we don't really even live in a democracy, Not an absolute democracy at any rate, The will of the mob or the people, However you wish to look at it, Is restricted by a constitution, Protecting minorities, Criminals do not lose their rights when they commit crimes, That is the whole point of the eighth amendment making cruel and unusual punishment unconstituional and unlawful.
Debate Round No. 2
FanboyMctroll

Pro

When I'm elected President, My first point of business will be the amendments to the 2'md constitution as well as the 8'th constitution. The Constitution was written 300 years ago during the time when we had horse and buggy, Wild west, Savage Indians and tyrannical governments. Those days are over now. We have a modern society now. Now I'm not going to get into the abolishing of the 2'nd amendment in this debate. But I will touch on the 8'th amendment.

My firm belief is that once you cross that line into a serious criminal offence, You chose to do the wrong thing against the law. We all have choices in life and if you decide to break a law in a heinous matter and serious criminality then you should be forfeit of any rights as a criminal.

I am in firm belief of victims, General public safety. Therefore the criminal needs to be tattooed to be identified in the general public. A criminal conviction = forfeiture of rights. You are now a dirtbag in society and should be label as such with a tattoo. The general public has the right to know who the criminals are and so they can be identified quickly outside of prison.

When I become President this will be the number 1 agenda on my domestic policy. Criminals are just worthless scum and should be treated that way

mic drop
billsands

Con

I will meely say this, I don't think you willeve be president, I think trying to amend the second or 8th amendments will not be that easy, Barring the abolition of the 8th amendment, You would not be able to brand criminals on the face, Its cruel pointless and would make their lives impossible iether just keep them in prison, Or give them back their lives, Enough of this second class status for felons.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sophie20 1 year ago
sophie20
I think he should also get a tattoo, Sample eagle tattoo(freedom) https://www. Tattoostypes. Com/eagle-tattoo-traditional-eagle-tattoo-ideas-2020-best/
Posted by VoReason 3 years ago
VoReason
"The Constitution was written 300 years ago. . . "

Oh, My.
Posted by deathtank55555 3 years ago
deathtank55555
hey, No offense but con really needs to get to the real arguments, Instead of appealing to empathy.
this should be a easy win for con, If the arguments get said.
but you literally wasted your first out of 3 rounds
the best would be
2p: argument and point out fallacy
2c: refute argument, Lays down 100 arguments that make sense
3p: attempts to refute arguments
3c: refutes those refutations and coolly concludes
Posted by SorghumJohnson 3 years ago
SorghumJohnson
There are lies, Damn lies, And statistics. In some U. S. States all statutory traffic violations are misdemeanors punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment, And so all carry a right to a trial by jury, Which also goes for littering in those states. Are you proposing that we tattoo speeders convicted of travelling at 11 mph over and people convicted of dropping a gum wrapper?

Pin it down to a jurisdictional territory and I'll consider taking you on.
Posted by deathtank55555 3 years ago
deathtank55555
I already have a debate going on, But would take this in a second.
You said: "Since the recidivism rate is at 89%, " source?
https://www. Recidivism. Com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/rearrest-rates-by-year-after-release. Png
I may not have fully learned real analysis fully, But that series seems to converge at 55%.
This is also a 2017 study, And I'm guessing yours is either in some year like 2002, Or perhaps in a random state.
I think my source is for the whole US, And the US is probably more criminally violent than many countries in the world, Including the one I live in.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MewxVenus 3 years ago
MewxVenus
FanboyMctrollbillsandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to provide evidence that criminals cannot be reformed. The failure of the American justice system to reducer recidivism is an anomaly among first world. While Pro cited a source for a claim, it was not the claim that their argument hinged on. Pro also showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution throughout the debate. I would, however, urge the con to use more cited evidence as well. Additionally, some criminals do lose their rights (specifically to vote) when they commit crimes. The point on the difficulty this causes for reintegration into society is what did it for me, but if Pro had been able to provide peer reviewed evidence that this was not a possibility (not just statistics on one nation's failure) you would have lost the debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.