Mercy vs. Strict Justice

Overview / Framework The CJS was intended to be a form of strict justice and it primarily is. I understand that CJS has merciful elements; CJS is a form of strict justice. I understand that in some areas CJS can me more merciful and in some CJS can be more strict justice. The purpose of CJS isn’t to be merciful - it is to enforce the law and make sure that those that break it are punished accordingly. This is an on balance (OB) issue and it can be seen in two ways. The first way to view it, is by analysing which one should be applied in most cases. The second way to view it is to look at how drastically people are harmed by strict justice compared to mercy. This is how I am viewing the OB issue and I am not failing to meet my BOP. I am referring to CJS (which is an issue that relates to harm inflicted upon society). Strict justice inflicts less harm upon society than mercy does. This is a valid way to interpret this debate. This is an OB topic. He and I haven’t established a common view on the meaning behind the definition itself. I understand that we aren’t talking about no mercy vs no strict justice, what I am arguing is that strict justice causes less harm than mercy. Society may have subjective views on the issue. The harms and consequences of mercy are worse/better, we can analyze the issue on an objective level and can prove which one is preferable and should be valued more by looking at the objective negatives and balancing out which consequences are more mitigating. Self Release He is now claiming something different to what he originally said. First, he states that mercy releases the self. Now he is saying that mercy is the only way to release the victim of negative emotion. “early release of prisoners is an insult to victims and makes a mockery of our justice system.” To prove that what he is saying is false I will provide an example of a child rapist. I will allow him to decide on whether or not the emotions were positive or negative: ‘ A child rapist has been released ... [he] was serving five life sentences for carrying out sex attacks on his stepdaughter for six years. His victim, who was eight when the paedophile first struck in the late-1970s, said she fears Williams will now track her down to carry out threats to harm her again. The woman said: “He will come for me, he has made that clear. “This is a monster who believes his own lies and his own rules. He is violent and evil. People need to be aware of how dangerous he is.” It [also] ruled he should be moved from his open prison to a closed one. Ordinarily, he would not have been eligible for parole again for a further two years.’ There are many of these cases and I will source more examples for different crimes to show that these negative emotions are not just for rapists. It is the same for thieves, frauds and vandals. I agreed that it can help to release negative emotions however this is not always the case and there are many safer options, e.g. counselling. I will now respond to his mugging responses: 1) I agreed that in these scenarios it is okay; crime is increasing, more crime is continuing to occur in the world. Small arguments can be resolved with mercy; he has said that this is an OB debate and as a result I agree that mercy is preferable in this scenario; with increasing crime this evidently means that the number of victims is also rising with a positive correlation to criminals. This means that there is an increasing number of scenarios in which we must choose whether or not to forgive criminals. 2) This point has no impact upon the resolution. It shows that mercy is necessary for self release and that strict justice is necessary for correct punishment. 3) Assuming that the court is merciful and gives them a shorter sentence. The child rapist who was let out early proves that shorter sentences due to the court being merciful is not always the best choice. This is because releasing prisoners early exposes the victims; contradicting the purpose of his contention regarding self release. Letting the victims out early, as you have proposed, creates fear. It can be good in sometimes; you cannot always know if it is beneficial and it is safer and more objective to to punish criminals, the way that criminals are supposed to be judged according to the law. Crime He seems to have misunderstood my argument. I never said that I agree that first time offenders should be released. I said, they can be released as part of the CJS. I said that they can and do get released for being first time offenders. Nothing was dropped. I agreed that first time offenders are released (not should be) and we need to impose a system of strict justice in order to make sure that these first time offenders do not commit crimes again. He states that I’ve been arguing for the Pro position because I left that part of his argument. It was a fact, not an argument, that does not mean that I’m arguing for Pro. The rehabilitation evidence was not dropped. Rehabilitation appears to be the merciful option, it can occur whilst strict justice is in place; the scenario is in support of both strict justice and mercy, the argument has no impact upon the resolution. I know that mercy does not mean that prisoners will not be jailed. It does mean that the government is more lenient towards criminals and more criminals will be let off; have shorter sentences; less murderers and rapists will be sentenced to death / life sentence and there is less fear towards prison and the justice system and criminals will roam on the streets (not because they have walked away without punishment), because they have had shorter sentences and the court has been merciful. Injustices to the Offender He concedes that a criminal record is necessary for violent criminals so I won’t respond to that. He talks about non-violent criminals. Non violent criminals include: thieves, drug dealers and vandals. The record doesn’t mean that you can’t get a job. The record just informs the company employing you of your previous offenses. If a bank isn’t informed that they are employing a thief, then that can be problematic. If a school isn’t informed that they are employing a drug dealer as a science teacher, that can be problematic. If a family are looking for a regular gardener they don’t want a vandal to be gardening. The record doesn’t particularly affect your job unless you have committed a serious crime. The record informs your job that you have a criminal history. Mitigating Circumstances Analyzing his source for his example in detail, it is clear that he has conveniently left out some major details that were not mentioned. The same person had been convicted and arrested for fraudulently in order to obtain $80 worth of goods. Within a year of his release he was jailed for forging cheques. He didn’t just forget to pay back his fine on the 3rd occasion. He refused to do so despite multiple warnings. He had committed 3 offenses regarding obtaining / withholding money, the court found that it was likely that he would attempt to do so again and they came to the conclusion that their only option was to give him a life sentence. It wasn’t ridiculous. Healing The SA example is dropped because you provided two that were similar. The first one referred to chaos with strict justice and the second, order with mercy. By showing that there isn’t chaos with strict justice, that proved that mercy and strict justice were equal.. The SA example also proved to be problematic since this was specific to a certain area, culture and time period.. He failed to show that mercy would have beneficial effects in most areas. This example only reflects a small portion of the world. In most of the world we can see that the effects will not be as beneficial. Summary He has failed to show how mercy would work as a primary feature in the CJS and I have met my BOP. He has also failed to provide any arguments that haven’t been refuted by me. I urge voters to vote Con! http://bit.ly...http://bit.ly...;