This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes

I will start my argument with a bit of rebuttal towards the previous speech and using this rebuttal I will reinforce my previous points showing why they still stand. Then I will move to my substantive discussing credibility and accountability. As my opponent says people of Britain have freedom of speech and are quite fond of it however as I had said in my first speech this is becoming an abuse of our right to freedom of speech. Prisoners have broken the social contract therefore they are removed from society and lose certain rights like the right to vote. I believe they should also lose their freedom of speech in relation to their crime. Prison is meant as a punishment not a platform for individuals to capitalise on suffering. We restrict our citizens everyday to up hold our protection of our citizens positive rights. Con's rather over dramatic vision that somehow our parliamentary infrastructure will disintegrate and the government loses credibility for implementing other restrictive policies is flawed and I will discuss it in more depth in my substantive. I have no issue with the dictionary definitions provided by Con and I am assuming he is discussing definition 4 "account: an oral or written description of particular events or situations; narrative" when he attempts to damage my second point about the glorification of crime. This is a very nice dictionary definition but I tend to debate in terms of real life actions. However even if we go with Con's argument for the moment we see that my point still stands. So a black man breaks into a house with the intention to steal from the house. He has no job and is living off of benefits in a council flat. He has no intention of looking for a job and spends most of his money on alcohol. The house he broke into belongs to a wealthy, middle aged white couple. The house has a silent alarm and the police alerted and a male and female officer respond immediately. When they arrive at the house the man becomes aggressive and attempts to flee. The female officer uses her taser to subdue the thief who is overpowering her male colleague. The man is then arrested. In the bag of items the man had attempted to steal from the house the police found expensive jewellery, games consoles and a box of biscuits. The man publishes this statement independently of his lawyer: "I broke into the house to steal because I do not have enough money to buy food. A white cop fired a taser gun at me. I have been arrested for breaking and entering a house that belonged to a rich, white couple. I believe I have been discriminated against because I am black and have no job. " All of this is true but it also gives a very biased view of the crime. Even if something is factually correct it can still lead situations where the crime is glorified or given legitimacy by the public who are subject to biased views exploited by the media. The type of accounts we get are public interviews or books or articles in newspapers/magazines. They will be based around fact however they will also be biased such as the nature of a personal account of a situation. It is the manipulation of the biased view that causes the harm and it is harmful enough for it to be banned. On to my substantive now. Con believes that the Government will lose credibility by restricting prisoners freedom of speech. We actually see that the opposite will happen and the Government will gain credibility. Many people are affected by crimes and one of societies biggest concerns is reduction in crime and protection from crime. Many people believe that the government does not do enough to deal with these issues. This is where this motion comes in. The Government understands the problem that I pointed out in the first round that people don't feel protected even if the criminals are in prison because they can still manipulate things. The Government sees that it has a duty to keep their citizens safe. The Government sees that criminals can abuse their freedom of speech to bring further suffering to their victims. The Government has the power and the right to restrict prisoners freedom of speech when more good will come from it than harms which is what happens. When the Government is seen to take a harsher new on the situation and implement more safeguards for the public they are seen to be taking more interest in their primary concern of keeping their citizens safe and taking crime more seriously they gain respect. By allowing the facts to be manipulated to the benefit of the criminal prevents the trial from being overly influenced by already influential perceptions. It drags victims into the media spotlight causing them unwanted and unnecessary stress. It allows the media and the criminal to capitalise on crime and it allows the facts to be skewed by bias manipulating the public view. It is better for society for this right to be restricted and because prisoners have broken the social contract the Government has the right to restrict their rights when it is in societies best interests. This brings me on to my second point of accountability. The law is now fully responsible for producing the full and unbiased account of the crime that took place and the court proceedings. All accountability now lies with the law. Why is this a good thing? Because the law is forced to take more care in the way crimes are handled. They are now under more pressure to get things right because it is now very easy to pinpoint who got it "wrong". Nothing will ever fully get rid of bias simply because it is human perception but this can lessen the effects. The law hands out the punishments and should have full accountability for the facts released to the public. This makes sure that hate crimes where can be properly dealt with in a way that is sensitive towards the victim and the families but still gives a very accurate account of the crime. It also gives the police space to analyse the evidence properly to determine whether possible hate crimes are actually hate crimes without the defendant pushing public views on the subject. The government has more accountability and therefore more public pressure for the right outcome not the most popular outcome due to interference caused by publications from the prisoner. For the reasons that the victims must be protected, because the negative effects of the media will be lessened and more accountability is given to the Government this motion must be proposed. Thank you.