Mercy vs. Strict Justice

Thanks, famous! At this time, I will defend my case.FRAMEWORKCon opens up with a comment about my presumption argument. Since I made this as a rebuttal to Con's case, Con should've waited to address it until round four. However, since he did rebut it here, I will just say Con gives no reason why voters ought not presume Pro, merely asking voters not to do this is not an argument. I provided a solid analysis of why the presumption should exist, and so my argument should be preferred as it actually has a warrant.As for the rest of my framework, it is dropped. Extend: justice is the fruit we're trying to maximize and the topic should be viewed as an "on balance" one. The fact that the topic is "on balance" means that my world is not totally without "strict justice," merely it means that my world tends to value mercy more.ARGUMENTSC1. Self-ReleaseCon writes: "I understand that mercy releases the self and the focus of this rebuttal isn’t to disprove this." Extend that mercy is the only way for the victim to relieve themselves of the negative emotions that criminals inflict upon this. Since these negative emotions are not our due, mercy corrects an injustice here, which is a net positive when weighing which world is more just and fruitful.Next, Con asserts: "A mugger is defined as a person that attacks and robs another in a public place. This is a serious offense and must be punished...By allowing this mugger to go freely - yes, you will feel good about yourself but does that outweigh the fact that somebody else will become a victim to attack and theft because you wanted to feel good about yourself?" I, of course, have several replies to this analysis:1. The mugger was a hypothetical example used to illustrate a principle. We could be talking about any number of offense, most of which are less serious than a mugging. If your insulted by a friend or colleague, for instance, forgiveness still releases you of negative emotions, so the plus remains. ON BALANCE, this "mercy-good, forgiveness-good" approach is going to be appropriate, because common sense tells us that there are far more menial, less serious transgressions than serious ones. So, even if you buy Con's attack, we can apply strict justice in serious cases, while still affirming that, on balance, mercy is superior.2. Perm and do both. The state can still incarcerate a mugger even if the victim forgives them. Mercy from the victim does not preclude punishment by the state, so we can still do both in my world. So, even if you buy that the same actor cannot both punish and be merciful, as Con seems to suggest, this idea would not get in the way of my arguments here.3. Con continues to operate on the incorrect notion that mercy and punishment somehow are mutually exclusive things. It is possible for a single actor to be merciful and still to punish at the same time. Mercy is a necessarily relative term; if a parent tells their child, "you will not go to the event tonight if you steal a cookie," and the child steals the cookie, it would be merciful to allow the child to go to the event but punish them instead with a 15 minute timeout. Punishment was still involved, but it was merciful, not strict. Thus, punishment and incarceration can still happen while showing mercy. So, there is even less reason to believe that the criminal will go free just because the victim forgave them.C2. CrimeCon basically agrees with me: that first time offenders being let off are going to be treated. This is NOT Con's ground. In the passage I am about to quote, which was DROPPED by Con, I explain why his system would not allow this kind of policy: "A strict interpretation of justice, that is to say, a more punitive model of justice, would require that wrongdoers be punished for their wrongdoing, regardless of whether it is their first transgression or not. Moreover, those punishments would naturally be more severe under this view than under a mercy-driven approach." The reason this is true is because it is STRICT. It won't let people off with a warning or a threat. So, insofar as Con agrees that letting people off with a warning not to reoffend is effective, Con makes arguments in support of the Pro position. This is true of Con's responses about shortened sentences as well--shorter sentences are merciful, and are thus Pro ground, supporting my case. Turn Con's arguments against him. Con also just totally DROPS my rehabilitation evidence.Con does claim that in a merciful system, people who are let off will reoffend because there is no credible fear of being punished should they recidivate. This is just false. I honestly think Con just does not understand the topic, or what this debate is about. This is not a debate about whether we should have a criminal justice system or not, it is a debate about whether our idea of justice should place more of an emphasis on mercy or on strictness. You can still incarcerate, you can still punish, you can still reprimand, etc. under a mercy-driven approach. The difference is that the state is more lenient, kind, and forgiving under a merciful approach, but it absolutely does not mean that the state will fail to lock up dangerous offenders or ignore the fact that some people do need to be penalized for their action.C3. Injustices to the OffenderCon talks briefly about mass murders and serious offenders in general; I doubt that these people would be released from prison in the first place, so they're hardly germane to this point. And sure, for many offenders, having criminal records posted is a public safety issue, and in those cases, it is fine to have the record available. But for nonviolent offenders (who made up, for instance, 47.6% of sentenced state-level prisoners, a huge chunk [1]), criminal records are often unfair burdens to getting a job. Sure, you smoked pot...why should that conviction prevent you from ever having a decent job again? Public safety isn't at risk in suppressing your record in that case, and so there seems to be absolutely no reason to extract "payment" from the offender after they've served their time by making this record available. Even some violent offenders who have gone through rehabilitation and successfully reintegrated with the community might be worth considering for record suppression.C4. Mitigating CircumstancesCon says I use only one example. The thing is, that this one example demonstrates a universal problem: when you strictly apply rules without regard to mitigating circumstances, you are going to commit injustices. Con never disagrees that the fate of the AC repairman was unjust, and common sense tells us that if we apply rules blindly as we did in his case, many other cases like his will arise because we failed to consider the other factors in play. Con's example of the attractive killer is also a bit absurd, since reasonable people convict attractive criminals all the time. But, also, the jury could still acquit the killer in a strict system, so this is non-unique. And mercy may be subjective in the sense it wants mitigating factors considered, but it also demands that these factors be objectively assessed, so, again, Con's objection fails. As for the subjectivity issue, I will address this more in responding to Con's case.C5. HealingArresting the protesters after the fact is just as likely to incite further unrest and violence. It almost feels like the Night of the Long Knives, with the police purging the populace of dissenters. Again, mercy, in the form of community dialogue and the police not taking harsh retaliatory action, is best. Obviously, vandals and looters need to be stopped, but most protesters don't do those things, and should not be the victims of retaliation. The South Africa example is totally DROPPED. Extend it. It shows the effectiveness of mercy in healing community divides.SOURCEShttps://en.wikipedia.org...