All Felonies should be treated equally

Onto the debate! Pro's 2 arguments: 1) Equal punishment will discourage crime; the death penalty would be applicable to fall felonies 2) Treating all felonies the same will make the justice system swift and more efficient Regarding Pro's second point, I disagree. It's absurd to suggest that all felonies should be treated the same just to make the justice system process faster. Yes, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. However, hastening the process to care more about time than results may lead to 2 awful conclusions. First, there may not have been enough time to develop a proper prosecution and/or defense, thereby increasing the odds of coming up with the wrong verdict. This can be detrimental to both the individual and society depending on the outcome. And second, it is not fair to the defendant to rush through the process; even a criminal up until a certain point has rights like everybody else. Not every case is black and white. Sometimes, there are even confusions between misdemeanors and felonies. For instance, if one is carrying a small pocket-knife, it would be perfectly legal. However, recent laws are being drawn that would make it a felony to carry 8 out of 10 pocket knives across state lines [1]. Suppose you didn't know which of your knives wouldn't make the cut (pun intended) and then were charged for a felony. Is this fair? Would you deserve the death penalty for it? Moreover, Republicans in Red States are also seeking to not only make abortion illegal, but to make crossing state lines in search of one a felony [2]. Since abortions are legally speaking a woman's choice, then criminalizing it in your home state is fine. However, to make it a felony punishable by death when it is legal in other states seems backwards. That brings me to my next point: your first argument. Pro says that treating all felonies as the worst possible felony (murder, i. e. punishable with the death penalty) is beneficial to society because it would reduce crime. First, Pro cannot prove that this is the case. Using middle eastern countries is a bad example, because their justice system, politics and entire way of life is different than here in the States. Second, Americans don't deem that kind of grouped classification appropriate. This resolution, if submitted to politicians, would never pass as the citizens wouldn't support it. In the U. S. , we usually deem it disgusting when other countries act harshly upon their citizens for what we deem to be minor crimes. Are felonies serious crimes? Sure, some of them. However Pro would have the burden of explaining why a felony like carrying a gun to school (NOT SHOOTING ANYBODY) deserves the same punishment as shooting somebody. Another comparison would be to explain how the felony of assault deserves the same punishment as murder. Our justice system values retribution and doling out specific penalties suitable to the crime. For instance, the death penalty is legal because many feel that it's an appropriate punishment to claim "an eye for an eye" - a death for a death. However, there would be no justification for taking someone's life because they might have assaulted someone and gave them a black eye. It just doesn't add up. Even if crime were lowered as an implementation of this harsh and unnecessary policy, it would not necessarily be overall good for society as a whole. People commit crimes for a whole bunch of reasons. Sometimes it's poverty, sometimes it's a mistake of a young person falling in with the wrong crowd, sometimes it's drug addiction and sometimes it's mental illness. It would not be fair to punish a person with death for making a mistake. This country should be focusing on rehabilitation; not destruction. Many people would lose their lives as a result of this policy perhaps unfairly and unnecessarily. Consider this analysis regarding the likelihood of people unknowingly committing several felonies a day. In regard to internet activity, attorney Harvey Silverglate says, "Too many lawmakers, defining the difference between these crimes and acceptable online activities is beyond their lawmaking prowess. Granted, drafting legislation which carves out these activities as crimes, without punishing people exercising their Constitutionally protected civil liberties can be difficult, but that is the job you pay your lawmaker to do. If Congress cannot come up with a law that avoids persecuting the innocent, it must go back to the drawing board. Unfortunately, rather doing enough research to draft online laws more carefully, Congress drafts overly broad legislation, making many legal activities crimes and leaving it to the courts to separate the good guys from the bad guys. This is not how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. Making ten innocent people criminals just to catch one actual bad actor is not acceptable. " [3] Here's another example he cites: Take for instance the anti-cyberbullying legislation currently being proposed before Congress. This bill is to protect young people against anonymous attacks. The actual bill, however, makes no mention of age or anonymity. If enacted, the law would make it illegal to for anyone to coerce anyone "using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior. " This includes the use of phones and the internet, as well as other types of electronic communication we have not even thought of yet. Violation of this law will net you a fine and/or two years in federal prison. If this ever gets enacted, I know a lot of lawyers that may need to go looking for a different line of work. He continues, "One of the principal tenants of our criminal justice system is that serious crimes require an intent element. .. According to Silverglate, as a result of vague laws, the average American unknowingly commits three felonies every day. The harsh penalties associated with these vague, confusing and over-broad laws has created a perverse climate for criminal prosecutions. Rather than having to find a crime and track down a perpetrator, federal prosecutors can now simply pick out an individual and then track down a crime. Even if you successfully prove your innocence, a federal trial can take six years or more and cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars" [3]. So, imagine if all of these crimes turned felonies were punishable by death! Without any serious intent to harm someone, a mere mistake could cost a citizen his or her life. That seems barbaric; even people in ancient times had a more appropriate legal system. The bottom line is that you cannot violate human rights or take human lives on the basis of wanting to speed up the legal process. We can take other measures to fix it, but implementing this policy isn't one of them. Further, one of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes applies here -- Those who are willing to give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. In other words, it's unjust and unwise to give up your liberties out of fear. In this country, our legal system has been established to ensure freedom of the people, and only if a serious threat or crime has occurred do we take action to punish. If we concern ourselves with prevention to the point of infringing upon human rights and freedom, then we have become an oppressed nation. For this reason and all of my aforementioned arguments, I stand in firm negation of the resolution. References: [1] . http://earthhopenetwork.net... [2] . http://www.democraticunderground.com... [3] . http://blawgit.com...