In the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact.

Good luck! "‘The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. ' In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: ‘Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved. '"[1] It is for this idea of fairness that I stand Resolved: In the pursuit of justice, due process ought to be valued above the discovery of fact. Definitions: Justice: "Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves"[1] Due Process: "An established course for judicial proceedings or other governmental activities designed to safeguard the legal rights of the individual. "[2] Fairness – which is defined as "1. Free from discrimination, dishonesty, etc; just, impartial, [and] 2. In conformity with rules or standards; legitimate. "[3] As we have seen, justice is giving each person what he or she deserves as constituted by the law, or treating each person fairly according to the law. And as the resolution states, we are to decide what we should value more in pursuit of that justice, due process, or discovery of fact. This leads me to my first contention: Contention 1. Due process best leads to consistent justice. Under our Constitution, we have certain fundamental rights. We have the right to freedom of religion, speech, and press. [4] We have the right to bear arms[5], the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"[6], the right to a speedy trial[7], the right to a trial by jury[8], and so on. These rights MUST be upheld, and upholding these rights is a very large part of due process. Due process' "commitment to legality"[9] is what makes it best lead to consistent justice. As soon as these constitutional rights are violated, justice is lost. So by following proper legal proceedings, due process assures no rights are infringed upon. Insuring that justice is served. Contention 2. An absence of due process leads to injustice. A great example of this is the court case Gideon vs. Wainwright. "In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with breaking into and entering a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor, a combination of offenses that constituted a felony under Florida law. He could not afford a lawyer, and he requested to have one appointed by the court. Nearly twenty years earlier, the U. S. Supreme Court had held in Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 62 S. Ct. 1252, 86 L. Ed. 1595 (1942), that an ordinary person could do an adequate job of defending himself or herself. A court-appointed lawyer was required only if the defendant had mental or physical deficiencies, the case was unusually complicated, or the case involved "special circumstances. " None of these exceptions applied to Gideon, the Florida trial court ruled, and thus his request for counsel was denied. Gideon conducted his own defense and was found guilty of the charges……… Gideon was later retried with a court-appointed lawyer representing him and was found not guilty. "[10] Here Gideon was denied the right to a lawyer, part of the due process, and was found guilty of a crime he did not commit! But later when he was tried with proper due process, he was found to be innocent of the crime. We see here a prime example of how an absence of due process leads to injustice, showing us just how essential due process is. Contention 3. Valuing discovery of fact over due process leads to injustice. As stated earlier, justice is giving everyone what he or she legally deserves. And our constitution says our citizens legally deserve the rights given to us therein. So following simple logic, if our rights are violated, justice is violated. This is exactly what happens when you value discovery of fact over due process. A discovery of fact outlook says that if we suspect someone of a crime but do not have the evidence to convict him or her, we should do whatever necessary to get that evidence. Be it an illegal search of private property or cruel and unusual punishment, if it helps us find the "facts", we should do it. But how can this be justice? Even if the evidence needed to convict that person is found, his rights have been infringed upon, and justice therefore already lost. So while valuing discovery of fact over due process might help convict a guilty party in some cases, due process should always be held above discovery of fact in the pursuit of justice. Thanks again to my opponent for accepting this debate! ! Good luck, and I look forward to your rebuttal. Sources: [1]. http://www.scu.edu... [2]The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, Copyright 2010 by the Houghton Mifflin Company. . http://education.yahoo.com... [3]Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition, Copyright 2009 by William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd [4]1st Amendment [5]2nd Amendment [6]4th Amendment [7]6th Amendment [8]7th Amendment [9]. http://topics.law.cornell.edu... [10]. http://www.encyclopedia.com...