Resolved: Just governments ought not persecute victimless crimes.

I do not contest my opponent’s moral framework, and I already addressed the issue of the BoP--the resolution advocates a change in the status quo, so we should agree on sharing the BoP (as my point suggests that the BoP is on Pro, and his suggests the BoP is on me). We need to be careful when discussing one example in-depth to keep the bigger picture of the resolution in mind.“Resolved: Just governments ought not prosecute victimless crimes.” Pro essentially argues that because certain efforts at prosecution have been implemented wrongly, the entire concept of prosecution of victimless crimes is immoral. However, this largely ignores the resolution, as we already are running with the assumption that the government in question is just. This necessitates moral goodness, which, under the consequentialist framework, requires the government to create as many most-positive outcomes as possible. Thus, a just government would not have punished the boy in Pro’s example who unknowingly slept with a minor, for instance, because the boy clearly did not act criminally, and the action of the justice system created only negative outcomes. Rebuttal 1: Drug Crimes A truly just government, as I have shown, must reform rather than punish users. Let us examine how this affects the premises on which Pro’s arguments are founded. Pro begins by noting the high prison rates that have resulted from the status quo. He does not explain why a high incarceration rate is harmful to society, and, under a reformatory justice system, it can be very helpful, granting access to beneficial societal programs that prisoners desperately need. Pro points out the costs of the War on Drugs; my definition of “just” effectively makes the War on Drugs unjust and unable to be factored into the impact analysis of the resolution. In fact, prosecution of victimless crimes does not even require imprisonment, as prosecution is simply the initiation of legal proceedings. A just government can end prosecution in, say, a 6-month rehabilitation program. According to Pro’s own Count the Costs source: “I invite you all to imagine that this year, all drugs produced and trafficked around the world, were seized: the dream of law enforcement agencies. Well, when we wake up having had this dream, we would realize that the same amount of drugs – hundreds of tons of heroin, cocaine and cannabis – would be produced again next year. In other words, this first dream shows that, while law enforcement is necessary for drug control, it is not sufficient. New supply would keep coming on stream, year after year.” (http://www.countthecosts.org..., page 3) The problem is that the current system does not focus on reducing demand. Reform, on the other hand, does. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, rehabilitation is effective. Drug addicts that are treated return to the system at a rate of about 40-60%, which is a rate of treatment for chronic illness (which drug addiction is) than asthma or hypertension. (http://www.drugabuse.gov...) Total savings incurred by treatment, including medical costs, are at a ratio of 12 to 1 with the costs (without, the ratio is between 4 and 7 to 1), and it results in “fewer interpersonal conflicts; greater workplace productivity; and fewer drug-related accidents, including overdoses and deaths” (http://tinyurl.com...). Rebuttal 2: The Economy Yes, prisoners under the current system are taken out of the economic system. However, under my presented elaboration upon the word “just”, the current system is not a just one, as it is punitive; therefore, this evidence is irrelevant to the resolution. Rebuttal 3: Autonomy and Util Under the moral framework set forth by my opponent, what is moral is what produces the most positive consequences. This is NOT the same as a framework that values autonomy, as it is moral under this framework for a governing body or another individual to intervene when an individual is acting to create negative consequences, even when those consequences only happen to the individual, provided that the end result is greater overall happiness. Pro’s example of underage consensual sex is thus irrelevant to the just government spoken of under the resolution, as it must act in accordance with the framework that we have both accepted, and the consequences of the government’s intervention in the provided example were negative. The issue in this debate is whether a government that acts in accordance with consequentialism--specifically, utilitarianism--can in principle prosecute victimless crimes. Providing an individual example in which negative consequences stem from prosecution of a victimless crime does not show that prosecution of any victimless crime will produce the same result. Similarly, “totalitarianism” is irrelevant to the debate, as we are specifically talking about a just government, which, by consequentialist standards, cannot act arbitrarily. As Pro never defined crimes, there is no burden on me to prove that something is inherently a crime, other than that it is currently rendered a crime. This debate is about the principle of prosecution of victimless crimes, as we are arguing from the perspective of a just government. As there is no government that truly ensures the best outcomes for all of its citizens, by a utilitarian/consequentialist framework, there is no just government currently in existence. This being the case, we are arguing about a theoretical government, which can, by the assumed definition of a crime being something prohibited by the state, prohibit whatever it wants to, provided that this prohibition creates positive consequences for society. Thus, consider the principles regardless of the mistakes made by real-world, unjust governments. Finally, Pro’s numerous restrictions in the underview were not agreed upon in the opening round of the debate. Restriction of the Neg rounds creates an atmosphere contrary to the spirit of debate, in which intellectual discourse of all kinds ought to be encouraged. Do not presume the aff, as the aff advocates for a change in the status quo. In summary, a just government must reform individuals who create negative outcomes for themselves or for society, by the consequentialist framework of morality. By prosecuting victimless crimes, a just government remedies the societal inefficiencies created by individuals. My opponent fails to account for justice in construction of his arguments, so they are rendered irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution is negated.