Athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime

Rebuttals:Pro says “Although the US justice system is not perfect, in theory and it's most basic principle is based on fairness. Although not attainable in every situation, fairness is not a foolish goal.” I agreed last round that as far as the U.S. Justice system, innocent until proven guilty is appropriate. However, Pro stated in the opening round “The civilian organizations that athletes play for, routinely punish players for crimes that have allegedly been committed. In some cases, there were not even police reports filed or charges have been dropped but these men are still punished. I think it is unfair.” Clearly the issue that we are addressing in this debate is civilian organizations not the U.S. Justice system. Pro agrees that “organizations have the right to do what they need to do to protect their image and interests,” though he does go on to say “the use of this right is often marred with controversies because of the uneven hand in which the punishments are handed out. The decision to punish or to not punish or how severely to punish is purely based on profits, public pressure, and the popularity of the athlete.” Again I stress that employees do not have a “right” to work for a private organization, these organizations do however have a right “to do what they need to do to protect their image and interests.” Which in these cases, is to punish, or penalize the individual. Pro says “This creates a condition of unfairness for the athlete. If sports organizations are going to punish employees for off the field/court actions in such a public manner, a level of fairness should be displayed especially when punishing for an "alleged" crime. A pattern or history of this could open up the door for false accusations against well meaning players and in some cases cause problems for the organization.” The damages done to the organization far outweigha the damage done to one person’s job. In fact the “fair” thing would be to protect the interests of the company over the individual as the sum of their interests and rights far outweigh the interests and rights of the individual. Which, again as I stated, the individual has no right to demand a job from a private organization. Pro says “One current high profile case involves a player who was punished twice for the same offense. This called into question the process by which the NFL decides their punishments and may lead to the termination of the commissioner of that organization.” This is a great example of an organization attempting to protect its interests and those efforts not being sufficient to curtail the damage done by the alleged incidents. Thus, requiring more attention to the incident in question. Pro says “There is a player that killed a team mate in a DUI accident that is still playing football, but a player gets an indefinite suspension for domestic violence. Not to downplay the seriousness of domestic violence, but both the player and his wife were initially charged with simple assault. Now, this player's life and his family's life are ruined in part to the way the NFL decided how their punishments are applied. If they had a more fair system, there would not have been as much controversy or fall out.” This is a red herring as it does not tie into the resolution, which again is “athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime.” My opponent is arguing that Companies should be consistent in there punishment. That is a great idea, and may have caused less contravorsy, but we are discussing if it is appropriate for a company to punish an athlete for an alleged crime. In fact my opponents words here pretty well concede that companies should be able to do so, as long as they are consistant. Conclusion: Pro has pretty well conceded the resolution, merely suggesting that the punishments be equal as opposed to withheld. I maintain that orginizations have the right to protect their image and their interests, an effective way to do so is to punish the player that has been accused.