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

The Judicial System in the U.S. should be Uniformally Nationalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 795 times Debate No: 52032
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I'm a believer that the judicial system in the United States is a piece of crap. I stand by the statement that all fifty states in the U.S. should work under the same code of laws regarding the judicial system.

This is a 30min per rd argument.

RD1 is acceptance.

Good luck!


Hello. This is a good debate topic. I accept.

Why do you believe that all fifty states in the U.S. should work under the same code of laws regarding the judicial system?
Debate Round No. 1


The Judicial System currently in place in the United States is unfair and corrupt. Why should one state have a different code of laws/regulations than another? I thought this was the "United" States. If each state gets to pick and choose how their sentencing works, what's legal and what's not, and independently decide how to prosecute someone, then how are we united?

Why is marijuana and listed as a "Schedule I" substance in the Controlled Substance act, allowing it to be legalized in some states such as California, Washington, and Colorado but not in Missouri, or Texas, for example. Is there any point behind the variance in the legalization of marijuana? What about gay marriage? Why is gay marriage only legal in a few states. If we're going to legalize it in one place, it should be legalized every where.

This debate is mainly about the criminal justice system, however. The corruption in this is ridiculous. My first example is Massachusetts does not have the death penalty for murder (as well as others), while numerous other states do. So in theory, two murders of the exact same malicious-intention and consequence could result in different sentencing? Why?


This is the "United" States. However, we are our own separate political entities. We are like this so the federal government cannot gain to much power.

Our current judicial system is fine as it. If we all follow one nationalized system, all of the states would be following rules that are unnecessary, and many states would find it challenging to pass laws that are necessary. An issue that affects California, might not be an issue that affects the other 49 states, so many would find the law completely ridiculous and not needed.

Also, if we all followed one nationalized system, you will basically destroy the purpose of State Senates, Congresses, General Assemblies, and Governors. You will get rid of a system that has existed for nearly the same time as the United States itself. Also, if we all followed one nationalized system that means you will need to get rid of City Mayors, City Councils, and City Police, who only exist to pass or enforce laws on a local level. If we all followed one nationalized system that would mean federal authorities would have to enforce most laws since they are, of course, national/federal laws only now.

Marijuana is an interesting thing to choose for this, however the ban on marijuana is a federal ban. In many cases, federal law overrides state law, and if they chose to do so, the federal government could choose to take action against the states that allow it, and those that use it, but they have chosen not to. The other states where it is not legal have chosen to not legalize it. If they want it legalized, they should encourage their representatives to make it legal. No one is stopping the state from making it legal

On the topic of gay marriage, it is legal in some states, and illegal in others because marriage law is a power reserved to the states by the United States Constitution. To make all states follow a uniform standard, you are invalidating parts of the Constitution.

And finally, on the topic of murder, while it is odd some people get the death penalty, while others do not because of the legality of it in a state is odd, it is done to protect your tax money in the majority of states not allowing it. In most states, it costs more to execute a person then it does to keep them in prison for life, and in very rare cases, where do you get the millions, or sometimes billions of dollars to repay the family of a wrongly executed person? However, this is an issue for the states to decide. It is up to the people, and the representatives they elected to determine what is best for the people of their state. Some have decided that is the death penalty, others have decided that is not the best option.

But in the end, we all ultimately follow different rules and laws to prevent the federal government from becoming to powerful, and to make sure the things that affect me and you are dealt with quickly and easily. We don't want an out of state issue to put a burden on our family and friends in a state thousands of miles from the problem state.

Thanks, and I do apologize for any possible grammatical errors, missing words, or misspellings. They were not intentional.
Debate Round No. 2


Beastified forfeited this round.


Thanks for the debate. Sorry you could not respond in time for Round 3. I hope you and everyone understands my viewpoint. Thanks again.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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