Conjoined Twins and the Penal System

Pro contends that due to the unusual nature of this case, we ought to throw out the past 300 years of development in the philosophy of justice. Essentially, he is saying by the very fact that this case is unusual, we should ignore the obvious logic behind prioritizing the rights of the innocent over catching the "bad guy", however it is times like these, where the lines are fuzzy, that such developments were made for. As such, I will proceed to explore that which we all already know is the just decision in order to re-affirm my position in the eyes of the judges, and see to it that this mock court does right by Stephen.Debate EthicsPro is trying to pull a fast-one here by suggesting I cannot provide an alternative without violating the spirit of the debate. A debate's "spirit" is not something to be defined ex-post facto -- to do so is to try to trap your opponent after they've already accepted, which truly does violate the spirit of debate; Not just this debate, but any debate. The only specification given as to what my BoP is, is to argue for the defence of Stephen's legal rights. If I can come up with an alternative that solves the issue of Harold's criminal nature without egregiously compromising the rights of Stephen, then I am well within my right to present such an argument, as no rule was made saying otherwise prior to my acceptance.Security vs. FreedomPro's core argument rests on the notion that we ought to prioritize security over individual rights. To support this, he appeals to utilitarianism -- arguing that it benefits society best to impede on one individual's rights in order to safeguard the general public. However, there is a reason why we have historically valued the former over the latter, and it's the same reason why Benjamin Franklin famously said, "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." [1]. By claiming we ought to imprison Stephen despite knowing full well that he is innocent, Pro is making a statement that spits in the face of our Western concept of freedom. He is claiming that the state should have both the power and the right to knowingly imprison an innocent so long as it means imprisoning a guilty party as well. This sets a dangerous precedent. If we can imprison an innocent party in order to imprison a guilty party in this case, we set the precedent to allow it in other cases as well. Why not threaten to imprison anyone who "pleads the 5th", that is to say, imprison those who choose to exercise their fifth amendment rights to not answer questions that may lead to an arrest? [2] After all, it's much easier to get information out of people when they themselves are facing prison time simply for refusing to answer. This is the inevitable extension of prioritising imprisonment of criminals over the rights of innocents, and the legal concepts protecting against such outcomes stretches back much farther than the last 300 years. It can be seen even in the Magna Carta, the document the fifth amendment stems from, which is nearly 800 years old [3]. Pro would have us ignore this obvious logic, which has been acknowledged as vital for the better part of a millennium.As such, utilitarianism clearly favours the protection of Stephen's rights, as ignoring them simply to imprison a criminal provides the highest disutility to society -- it establishes a precedent that undermines our legal right to due process in favour of state expansion.Taking One for the TeamPro is trying to argue that if we agree to allowing the police officer to tackle Harold down in order to stop a crime in-progress, we must therefore also agree to imprisoning Stephen for life in order to incarcerate Harold. This is, honestly, the most over the top example of equivocation I've ever seen. Tackling Harold/Stephen down in order to stop a crime in progress is forgivable as there was no time to do anything else and some action had to be taken -- but to use this as an excuse to ignore Stephen's rights as a citizen and give him a life-sentence when we DO have the time to consider the moral and legal implications of our decision is just plain lazy. The entire purpose of the justice system is to take advantage of the time we have available to us to allow both sides to develop their case, ensuring nothing pertinent is ignored. Purpose of PrisonNick Kam, member of the California State Bar and a graduate of the University of San Francisco School of Law, wrote a piece of legal scholarship outlining this very same thought-experiment titled "Half Guilty" [4]. In it, he outlines the reasons for having legal punishment in the first place:Retribution - This is the lowest reason. It is essentially to satisfy those affected by the crime by appeasing their desire for vengeance. This reason can be put aside in cases where the moral choice is fuzzy. After all, it is immoral to ruin the life of an innocent merely to satisfy our own desire for vengence. Rehabilitation - This can be done without prison time. We can place Harold under strict surveillance without compromising Stephen's life (much more than it already is being attached to a murderer, that is), and have mandatory sessions with a psychologist to keep tabs on his mental state.Deterrence - Since most people don't have a conjoined twin, the pre-established deterrent of life in prison for other murderers remains whether we imprison Harold or not.Incapacitation - This is the only one of note we must sacrifice. However, since we can keep tabs on Harold/Stephen, such as requiring a police escort when they go out until such time that a psychologist determines Harold is no longer a significant threat, we can ensure the public's safety without needlessly ruining Stephen's life. As such, we can fulfil the purpose of legal response without jail time, further establishing that imprisoning Stephen for Harold's crimes is a needless and egregious infringement on Stephen's rights.As it happens, Nick Kam concludes his paper agreeing that such a response would not be legal nor ethical.ConclusionIt is foolish to throw our hand up and toss out our intuitive values on the prioritization of rights simply because we are pressed with a hard moral question. Rather, it's times like these that we must examine why we have these values prioritized in such a manner in the first place. We cannot imprison Harold/Stephen as by doing so we are implicitly agreeing that we ought to sink into totalitarianism whenever things start to get fuzzy. Tackling Harold during a crime cannot be used as an excuse to imprison Stephen for life after a crime -- such a contention doesn't even make sense prima facie, and through alternative methods, we can ensure the public's safety without resorting to tossing our legal rights out the window. As such, pro has failed to fulfil his burden of proof. The resolution is negated.Vote Con Sources1. http://www.goodreads.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.legislation.gov.uk... 4. http://nickkam.com...