Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

Thank you for taking this debate, your arguments are good, but of course are flawed :) I am okay with making justice the value in this round, as long as the "due" that we are giving is deserved. What you will see in this round, however, is that justice is achieved on the Pro side. This is from us punishing only what people intend. My opponent contends that we aren't able to determine intent, but this is untrue, to prove this, I offer the following example... A. Example There are two people on two different highways driving at 100 miles per hour. Both are obviously at risk of seriously hurting someone. Their intention is to get home quicker. One gets pulled over by a cop. The other, accidentally runs over a kid that was out in the street (in a town he was trying to pass through)... Now you have a choice to make, do you punish the capabilities of the intentions, or the actual ends? Con will claims that giving the person who killed someone manslaughter and a year or two in prison while the other gets off with a $200 fine. Pro, however, will allow you to punish them equally. Give each of them a maximum of one month in jail and a maximum of a $1,000 fine (depending on previous offenses and judges discretion which is another debate)... It is unfair to punish someone more JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Instead, they should both be punished for the CAPABILITY of hurting someone by going over the speed limit. NOT you only get punished if your dangerous act actually hurts someone, that is what I like to call anti-justice-un-american-ism... My opponent says that our current justice system works, but against this, I have to say that it could work even better by voting Pro and only prosecuting intentions. This is proven by my A. Example. Punishing intentions is simply what we ought to do because when you punish ends, you punish someone for something out of their control. His next paragraph seems to be quite irrelevant. He says something about jury convicting someone doesn't make it true. This fault is something that both sides carry equally. However, what you can prove should help to determine intentions. He goes on to say that if he killed a black guy that it doesn't mean that he is racist. This is true, HOWEVER, his intention WAS to kill a guy (for whatever reason)… therefore, he should be punished for that. His last little line of justice hitting the mark and intentions not… Against this I simply have to separate our two types of justice. His form of justice simply looks at ends; mine weighs intentions over ends to give justice that is DESERVED. In other words, Con's "justice" is unjust in giving due's that are undeserved while Pro gives justice that is deserved… a just desert if you will. I think I need to explain why this round goes beyond if this action is capable of happening. My opponent explains that I need to be able to prove that this can happen. This is simply not true. The resolution specifies that this ought to happen. I ought to donate but that doesn't mean that I am capable of doing so. I ought to help someone dying, but if that person is thousands of miles away there isn't much I can do. Ought to do something goes beyond capability. We ought to punish people for what they intend. So even if he proves that punishing intentions is not possible, he does not win that we ought not to do it. Besides that, you can see that we CAN punish intention. This is proven through my Example A. argument. We ought to punish those people for putting their time concerns over the safety of others regardless of if either of them hurt anyone or not. Therefore, I can only see a Pro vote. Off of his argument of punishing ends is good.--> Simply against this I have 2 arguments… 1) Punishing ends benefits people who meant harm (Example B.) If someone tries to kill someone and fails, they will be tried for attempted murder which is not as bad as being tried for real murder, even though the factors stopping them could have come up out of nowhere. People who try to kill someone ought to be punished just as much as someone who does kill someone. 2) Punishing ends hurts people who meant no harm. Here I would just like to pull through Example A… The man who killed the kid that was in the middle of the street meant no harm, however, he was punished a lot more (at least if you accept con and the present system) That is wrong and ought not to happen, therefore I urge you to change it and vote Pro. Off of the evidence in II.--> 1) This argument in irrelevant to II. He brings up this evidence that has NOTHING to do with what I originally argued. I argue TRUE intent and my opponent argues people corruption. I can assure you that there is people that are corrupt whether you vote Pro or Con… 2) There is more corruption on con. The true difference between pro and con is that on con you have corruption built into the system by giving dues that are not deserved. Therefore, I urge you to see that there is less corruption on Pro since we punish what is intended and therefore what is attempted… NOT what results as results are out of the hands of the people affected. 3) The evidence is flawed. The currents system is first of all the Con side because they use intentions, but do not have a greater weight in court than ends which is wrong and ought to not happen. Secondly it is tagged wrong, it says ridiculous things WOULD happen when the evidence says they MAY spend the trial testing his values and beliefs. This is people corruption and has nothing to do with intentions. Instead it is taken out of context. If he wants to use this evidence, it should be in a resolution that talks about the credibility of the people in our system… NOT the system itself. Onto the real world effects debate 1) The real world effects are good. When punishing intentions, you get the true criminals off the street (which is our goal)… His main argument is that it's not possible (which was already covered). Example A and B prove that this is possible and WILL have good effects. My opponent literally said in his last speech that "intent should be the determiner of the punishment"… right there you should vote pro as my opponent agrees that this is what ought to happen when he says should. He goes on to say that this is not how justice works… but this is how it should (or ought to) work. People should punish intentions by looking at what was attempted, NOT what was achieved. 2) Only punishing the bad intentions. His last quote is as follows… "The road to hell is laid with good intentions"… This is true, however, there is a difference between having good intentions and falling short (which ought to NOT be punished), between bad intentions and not reaching them which ought to be punished. That is my stance and I urge you to see it and vote PRO. (and as far as the "in court" and "United States" and not being able to vote pro argument, I urge to see explanation to this as I don't see how this matters) Thank You!