Mercy vs. Strict Justice

Rebuttals Before I begin with the rebuttals, I would just like to note a few things. Whilst, I agree that the fact that I mainly focused on crime may give my opponent the advantage at this stage of the debate, I hope that voters will not vote against me for this reason alone. R1 - Mercy Releases The Self I understand that mercy releases the self and the focus of this rebuttal isn’t to disprove this. The focus of this particular rebuttal is to show the consequences of using mercy in this situation and why this scenario requires strict justice over mercy. It is always good to have a boost on happiness and self esteem however the main point that my opponent is missing here is that we are talking about a mugger. A mugger is defined as a person that attacks and robs another in a public place. This is a serious offense and must be punished. Statistics show that a first time mugger has a 60% increased chance of mugging again once they have mugged once. By allowing this mugger to go freely - yes, you will feel good about yourself but does that outweigh the fact that somebody else will become a victim to attack and theft because you wanted to feel good about yourself? I ask voters to consider whether or not they would prefer to feel good about themselves or suffer theft and attack in public from a mugger. If you would prefer to be happy (for a short period of time) vote for my opponent. If you would prefer to get the mugger arrested and stop somebody else from being mugged (possibly somebody that you know) then vote for me. R2 - Mercy Reduces Crime Let’s think about the problem with these statistics. Since, at the moment we are under a justice system and generally don’t view crime/criminals subjectively. Therefore, those that are not sentenced at all are most likely people who committed minor crimes. These people have been to court and haven’t been charged. This means that they have narrowly escaped punishment. Now that they haven’t been charged they know that they must be careful in the future to avoid a sentence. If we undergo a merciful system then criminals will be let off but won’t experience that element of fear since there will not be a system of strict justice. The most likely reason that those who are let off do not commit crime is because they fear strict justice. Without strict justice this element of fear will be rendered non-existent. Again, the same applies for the statistics regarding a shorter sentence in jail. If the criminal is sentenced for a shorter amount of time than expected for the particular crime that they committed, then they know that they narrowly escaped being sentenced for a longer period of time. This makes them fear strict justice more because they have felt its effect personally. They now know what life in prison is like and this makes them fearful of breaking the law because they know that they could have potentially been in jail for a longer period of time than they were sentenced to. R3 - Mercy Prevents Injustices to the Offender It is acceptable to not allow a criminal to be part of certain jobs. The purpose of a criminal record isn’t intended to be a punishment for the criminal. It is intended to make sure that society is safe and that people are protected and are not at risk of crime being committed at work. A criminal record is an indication of your criminal history that can be viewed by companies when you apply for a job. They are not irrelevant and are necessary in order to protect society. Would a mass murderer make a suitable school teacher regardless of whether or not they have the correct qualifications? The answer is no, and if you disagree then I’d be more than happy to discuss this in a separate debate because I do not know how you could think otherwise. Criminal records do make it hard for criminals to get a job but this is a consequence that criminals are usually aware of once they commit a crime. R4 - Mercy is more Understanding of Mitigating Circumstances My opponent has used an example regarding one individual out of 7 billion. I think that this alone significantly weakens this point but I will expand regardless of what I think. I never said that the justice system is completely fair however what I find strange is that my opponent believes that a system of mercy would be better than a system of justice. A system of mercy is arbitrary (as stated in the previous round). The problem with viewing criminal offenses subjectively (in this instance, mercifully) is that people have different views on different crimes depending on what they believe. Let’s use this example: an attractive killer is on trial. The jury and judge are attracted to this criminal and decide to be merciful and allow this killer to be free. If we act with strict justice then this scenario would be unacceptable. The jury and judge would be forced to act objectively and put personal feelings aside and deal with the actual issue. R5 - Mercy Heals Communities and Rifts Strict justice does not necessarily imply violence. In this situation, the best option is to warn the protesters of the consequences and give them the option to peacefully walk away. If the protesters refuse to walk away and are unwilling then the police have three options. They can either retrieve video footage of the protesters; follow the protesters and arrest them individually or act out of violence. If the protesters are in an area with CCTV then the protest will be filmed and recorded. This allows the protesters to be arrested individually after the protests. If there are no cameras, then the non-violent option would be to follow them and arrest them individually after the protests. If the protesters are being violent or are breaking the law in terms of theft, shoplifting or vandalism then the police have the right to intervene. “The duties of a police officer, also known as a law enforcement officer, focus on protecting people and property.” In this scenario, people are at risk and property (including shops) are at risk of people damaged and vandalized. A police officer must follow his or her duty to protect citizens and property and therefore they have the right to intervene violently in order to fulfill this responsibility. Unless my opponent is suggesting that we allow the protests to occur violently then the only solution is violence.Sourceshttps://www.google.co.uk...http://www.crime-statistics.co.uk...http://www.air-prehire.com...https://www.google.co.uk... https://en.wikipedia.org...