Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy)

I thank Con very much for dropping the mandate arguments as they were confusing and irrelevant.I will now proceed to refute his last argumentation.Cost:1. For some reason debate.org messed up the formatting of two of my links. If the link is broken, it's because debate.org added a space to the end of the URL. Just remove the space to see the article. I apologize for the inconvenience. Secondly, Con's evidence was misquoted. He said that the senate couldn't come up with an estimate, but click on the link and look right under the quote: it estimates how much the plan would cost. As we can see, the cost is estimateable. 2. Because if ALL interrogation rooms are used 10 times per year, and there are 175,000 suspects, then we know how many interrogation rooms there are total. 3. I am sorry about the links, I believe it was the debate.org's formatting messing it up. See 1. for how to fix it. Also if you look at the amount of suspects, it doesn't change drastically year to year. Plus, why does that matter? Suspects have nothing to do with the cost.4. This math is completely flawed.Con seems to think that the cost of interrogations is based on the amount of people interrogated. That is not the case. It's based on the amount of interrogation rooms.Con multiplied my number of 7,500 per room by 175,000 suspects rather than by the amount of interrogation rooms, so this math is flawed and should be disregarded.The federal agencies will most likely choose the best price for their equipment. Plus, 7,500 is a MAXIMUM estimate by my evidence. Once again Con continues to make nit picky arguments. Imagine a case to send twenty soldiers to Russia to deliver an envelope. Besides the fact that the case is obviously dumb and frivolous, you could argue that the plane might crash. But that's such a nit picky argument it should be considered. I would urge you as a voter to look at each argument and realize that Con has not provided much evidence to back things up, and most of his arguments are mitigation, not reasons to vote against me. Advantage 1. 1. Con is very confusing here... The difference between Guantanamo Bay etc. and this plan is that this plan RECORDS, guantanamo bay didn't. A federal agent isn't going to be abusive when there's a camera recording his EVERY move. 2. I don't get Con's point here. I agree trickery in interrogation is not a basis to disregard a confession. I never said trickery is an abusive tactic.Con is actually supporting the fact that interrogations should be recorded: so we can stop any abuse coming up!Advantage 2. 1. These sources are talking about the amount of KNOWN wrongful convictions. There are many that might not be known.2. Once again, this is a logical fallacy. My plan is not all for preventing wrongful convictions, I have 5 other advantages! This plan is not for 3% of the criminal justice system, it is for much more.Advantage 3. and 6I never conceded this point, I don't know where Con got this from. I responded to the argument about reviewing recordings by mentioning that not all recordings will be used for evidence. Also I want to repeat, there is no evidence behind my opponent's argument while mine does have evidence. Con conceded less disputes, which does save money.Advantage 4. Since when was a federal interrogation room more high-tech? That's an extremely random statement and once again it doesn't even matter.First of all, I'm not the one figuring out whether the video is going to be evidence, it's the prosecutors. This is a policy debate round.Second, Con jumped from "24 hour interrogations" to "weeks worth". When will he make up his mind? I've never heard of an interrogation that lasts a week. Third, there's only one interrogation per case. That's how it works. The suspect is thrown in jail, interrogated, and then the system continues. Fourth, I would like to reference what he says in the next section as support for this. He says that the interrogator will probably not remember such details. (like what color of car was mentioned). Thus it follows that the interrogator will not be able to give a detailed account of the interrogation a day or more later.Once again, Con has no evidence against this. I have evidence. Advantage 5. This example is flawed because the interrogator doesn't need to know the suspect's inconsistency in testimony until AFTER the interrogation. After the interrogation he can look at the recording and notice the difference in testimony. In fact, remember my evidence under Advantage 6. It says that recordation of the entire interrogation will allow investigators to see inconsistencies in testimony.This response does not apply. Lastly, the interrogator is allowed to take notes, he just can't submit them as evidence. So why are we arguing this. This is not a reason to vote Con at all. SignificanceBased on flawed logical reasoning which in turn is based on assumptions, it would cost them more money. Which do you prefer, voters? Evidence clearly stating that recording saves money, or some assumptions tied together with some logic to come up with the wrong conclusion that it doesn't save money? Mr. Sullivan has written several articles. Unfortunately the article I'm referencing is something you have to pay for since it's part of a law review. Here's a link: http://business.highbeam.com... But in that article he talks about the survey.Yes it is the new jersey supreme court, but that doesn't matter. It's still a credible source that's referencing previous experience to show that it costs 7,500 per interrogation room.ConclusionNow since this is the last round, I would like to mention some things. First of all, Con is not allowed to bring up new arguments in the next round, since I have no opportunity to respond to them.I would urge you to be cautious when reading through the last argument by Con to find fallacies, and I encourage you to read through mine again after to see that his arguments don't actually respond to mine. Here are some voting issues, or basically reasons why you should vote Pro.Voting issue 1. Comparative AdvantageThere are several advantages to recording interrogations. Advantage 1. Officers and suspects protected.Advantage 2. Decreased possibility of wrongful convictionsAdvantage 3. EfficiencyAdvantage 4. Money savedAdvantage 5. Improved interrogationAdvantage 6. Increased prosecution evidenceI've responded to all of Con's arguments against my advantages, and they still stand. Please remember that I have used evidence from the beginning of this debate, while Con has used minimal evidence.That leads us to:Voting issue 2. EvidenceAll of Con's major arguments have been based off of assumptions and so-called "logic", but he has not really responded to the actual evidence. His first two pieces of evidence were just mentioning bills that were not passed. We both agreed to end the argument on this since it was a simple misunderstanding of policy debate, and Con has not done this type of debate before so it's undrestandable.His second two were talking about false confessions. Once again, they may have spent years on this but they only know about a fraction of the amount of false confessions. His next evidence was saying the cost could be 30,000 dollars "per session", but the evidence actually said one department cost 30,000 dollars to outfit with recording equipment. Note that it must have had several interrogation rooms. This evidence was misquoted.The last evidence he quoted was also misused because he said that they couldn't come up with an estimate of how much this costs, but right after what he quoted, the original article estimated it would cost 5 million. I clearly have provided superior evidence and thus have proven my side of the arguments further.For these two reasons, I urge you to vote Pro.Thank you very much for taking the time to read this debate.