Quickfire Debate: Justice, Retribution, and Forgiveness

Thanks, Blade! I will now defend my case and conclude.===============================OverviewThe resolution does not specify for whom that justice is obtained. If I can show that justice for the victim can usually be obtained with the victim’s forgiveness of the criminal then I can negate just as well as if I can show that justice for the criminal can be obtained with the victim’s of forgiveness of the criminal. I would also call to mind the specific definition of justice that was agreed upon: "giving each their due."C1. Forgiveness and the SelfPro asks what the connection to justice is. This is his ONLY attack here. Thus, if I can show that there is a connection to justice here, this contention stands.I wrote in my case: "I am not due those negative feelings which were inflicted on me by the mugger, but failure to forgive means that those emotional wounds will stay with me for quite some time, possibly forever, meaning that the act of mugging (already undue) would leave me with long-term emotional pain that is also not my due...[F]orgiveness really does assist a person in ending the emotional trauma unjustly inflicted on them by their attacker." The connection to justice is apparent in this passage. The pain that has been levied upon me by the mugger is as unjust as the crime itself, which inflicted upon me physical pain that was undue. Similarly, forgiveness gives me back my due: it gives me the emotional peace I had before the attack and that I was entitled to. Thus, forgiveness is intimately linked with justice through the giving of dues and the rectifying of "undues."C2. Forgiveness and the CriminalPro writes: "But restorative justice requires restoration. The criminal can't undo what he did."This misunderstands the point of restorative justice. It is not about undoing past or restoring past events, but about restoring the criminal as useful, productive, and non-dangerous member of society.Pro next questions whether it is just to require the victim to forgive the criminal. Whether or not the victim is required to do so is not the same as discussing whether or not it’s necessary for justice. As I wrote last round: "the criminal is due the punishment meted out by the state; they are not due a life haunted by their act, particularly if this act was a relatively minor harm, a crime committed as a youth, a mistake, or a first time offense. It is unfair to punish the criminal for years in prison, and then to still condemn them to be punished afterword."C3. Taking ResponsibilityPro again questions where the connection is to justice. I would repeat what I said in my case: "Criminals are clearly due responsibility, and encouraging them to accept it themselves would likely both increase the chance that people will be held responsible for their acts and will make finding out who is responsible more easy." It would be unjust to not assign criminals responsibility because it's clearly something that they deserve (that is their due) because of their actions. If forgiveness promotes them receiving responsibility, then it is helping them to receive their due. That promotes the attainment of justice, which is "giving each their due." Pro never disputes that forgiveness promotes people taking responsibility. C4. Instrumental GoodPro’s next questions how reconciliation and pardons promote justice. In the interests of time, I’ll kick reconciliation, but I will defend pardons. Pro writes: "society has deemed that the sentence is the criminal's 'due', so how does Con justify that it's not their 'due'?"Firstly, this point emphasizes how justice isn't blind, since dues are in the eye of the beholder. Secondly, by reasonable analysis, nonviolent offenders have sentences that are unjustly long. The federal government imposes mandatory minimums on nonviolent drug crimes that range from 5 to 10 years. Growing 100 marijuana plants, for instance, can get someone locked up for 5 years. [1] This is clearly overly harsh--no one is harmed, and in many states this is legal, but yet people are incarcerated for a significant portion of their life. My point is that pardons, such as the one Obama is pursuing, promote justice by alleviating overly harsh sentences. As I wrote last round: "pardoning certainly serves justice interests insofar as many people held in prison for small crimes often serve overlong sentences in poor or rough conditions, which is not their due."Since pardoning has justice benefits for many people, and since Pro never contests that forgiveness makes pardoning easier, forgiveness instrumentally furthers justice. This is important: I am NOT saying forgiveness is pardoning; they are different. I am saying that forgiveness is a prerequisite for pardoning.C5. Vindication1. The victim can still refuse to forgive, even if it is a requirement for justice. They would be free to choose to act justly or unjustly, so the victim still holds power because they still have a choice.2. Even if it were obligatory, it's still vindicating by saying that victims' wellbeing matters by releasing their negative emotional baggage through forgiveness.CONCLUSIONI have shown:1. Forgiveness enables pardoning, and pardoning promotes justice by eliminating unjust sentences2. Forgiveness releases victim's of undue emotional pain3. Forgiveness restores the criminal, which is the criminal's due4. Forgiveness enables criminals to be held responsible, which is their dueRegarding Pro's case, he drops my first two objections to his C1. He never contests that his C2 does not apply to justice for the victim (releasing emotional pain) and doesn't discuss my more in-depth explanation of justice for the criminal (my 3rd point). And, my response to his C3 was an "even if" arg: moral impulses aren't emotion, but even if they were, they are useful. And even if they weren't forgiveness goes against emotions. Thus, the resolution is negated. Thank you! Please VOTE CON!Sourcehttp://tinyurl.com...