Mercy vs. Strict Justice

Thanks for the debate, famous! I'll address Con's case now.OVERVIEWFirstly, Con claims that the criminal justice system (CJS) is a form of strict justice. This is incorrect. As I noted, mercy and strict justice are relative terms, such that both can be found anywhere justice is involved, even in the CJS. You can have a more mercy-centered CJS just as you can have stricter CJS's.Secondly, this is not a quality vs. quantity issue. Because the resolution is making an "on balance" claim, Con MUST show that strict justice should be applied in most cases where justice is an issue. When you consider that a 5 year old stealing a cookie from a cookie jar is an issue of justice, you can realize that there are so many justice-related issues that focusing on the CJS ignores most justice-related issues. Given this, Con is BY DEFINITION failing to meet his burden in this debate because he is failing to show that strict justice should be used in most cases where justice is at issue. Therefore, you ought to vote Pro.ARGUMENTSJustice as a Principle1. The contradiction stands. Con says it is okay to treat family subjectively, but not criminals. Unless Con can provide a compelling reason why one type of subjectivity is okay, he cannot say that subjectivity for the other is not okay, and he certainly cannot make blanket "subjectivity = bad" arguments, which he attempts to do, since obviously some subjectivity isn't bad. Pro has no compelling reason why this isn't wrong to treat family subjectively, but he attempts to give some, saying that it is "normal," that "people agree with me," and that "it has no major consequences." Con's first point is an is/ought fallacy. Just because something "is" the case, does not mean it "ought" to be the case. It is normal in some societies for people to marry and rape child brides, but this doesn't make it just. The second reason is an ad populum fallacy. Even if people agree with you, that doesn't mean you're right. Once, people thought that the Earth was flat, but that didn't mean they were correct. The final assertion Con makes is also false. Acting subjectively towards family members can produce unjust results, and since "justice" is the highest value present in this debate, anything that undermines justice is "major." For instance, if I were judging a contest, and preferred my family member just because they were my family member, I could unfairly deny other people a win. 2. Con misinterprets the point of my example. My example shows that the application of rules (legal rules or moral/ethical rules) without regard for mitigating circumstances leads to injustice. Even in court, this holds. In order to avoid mistreating people like the AC repairman, we must factor in mitigating circumstances which requires a degree of subjectivity.Justice in Application1(a). Con says his argument was specific to harsher sentences, and since my source doesn't talk about it, my source isn't relevant. Unfortunately, I think Con misread my source; it does actually talk about harsher sentences. My source specifically says that crime rates increased "in spite of increased sentences." Con says that the fact that there is more crime is a "reason to increase sentences," but, my evidence clearly says that crime rates went up even after increasing sentences. We can conclude, therefore, that harsher sentences have no deterrent effect. Since Con fails to understand the source and to provide even a remotely applicable rebuttal, we can EXTEND this evidence. Since it is the only emprical evidence presented in the text of the debate, we must defer to it. The numbers disprove Con's whole deterrence theory.1(b). The data here, while confined to gun crimes, still shows that on principle, harsher sentences are ineffective deterrents. Why would harsh sentences, if they worked as deterrents, not work on gun crimes? There doesn't seem to be any specific reason why they wouldn't, so it further dents this notion that harsh penalties really deter. Plus, my other evidence is broader than just gun crimes.1(c). I don't agree that it does prevent crime. A 2% change could easily be attributable to other factors not connected ot the harshness of the penalty. The point of this evidence was to show that even some of the harshest laws (3-strike laws), do not adequately deter. And, even if the did deter, they fail to take into account mitigating circumstances, which renders them unjust.2(a). Sure, if they are in prison, they probably have committed a crime. But, in a lot of cases, these crimes are nonviolent or were committed by offenders who could be more easily rehabilitated without incarceration. Incarcerating them just teaches nonviolent criminals how to be more violent and makes offenders who could be salvaged unsalvageable. Con also incorrectly suggests that I provided no evidence for this assertion. In fact, if you look back at my case, I offered data from the Canadian government (see R2, Source 2) that support the idea that softer sentences that reduce criminal's exposure to the system reduce crime rates.2(b). Con says: "People that have broken the law don’t deserve to have jobs." So, a kid who gets busted for pot once or twice when he's 18 deserves to never be employed again ever in his life? That is patently absurd. After he does his time or serves his sentence, he should be allowed to find a job. This goes back to my argument that people who have paid their debt shouldn't have to be treated as if they're still debtors (see my case, Injustice to the Offender). Plus, he's not even a violent offender. Moreover, Con's position would merely increase crime. If this kid or others can find jobs, the only way they can make money is through illegal activities, which they'll be forced to resort to. 3. It doesn't put money over lives because harsher sentences don't reduce crime and don't save lives. This argument prevents wasting money on totally ineffective policies.RehabilitationEven if rehabilitation occurs in prison, it is still Pro ground. Prison programs that rehabilitate are more merciful and kind, because they're less punishment focused. They're trying to emphasize helping, not punishing, the criminal. Plus, the topic overview in round one unequivocally states that rehabilitation is Pro ground; rehabilitation is still rehabilitation even if it occurs in prison. Therefore, Con's cannot advocate for rehabilitation without supporting my side of the argument. My impacts (a) and (b) stand.RecriminationMy argument was a general critique about "retributive" models of justice, and applies outside of the CJS as well as within. It legitimizes the idea of "getting back" at others, and, logically, can result in escalating cycles of violence as people seek retribution against each other for wrongs. I don't need more than 1 example, because it is logically self-evident.What is Mercy?Arbitrary isn't the same as subjective. Mercy is subjective, but with good reason. It recognizes that there are legitimate mitigating circumstances that should be considered. And why is it wrong to treat a child, who cannot make good judgments, differently from an adult?MISCThe sources not being labeled is problematic for the reasons I noted. Those reasons are DROPPED. Also, Con cannot rebut any points he dropped, as these would be illicit new arguments.VOTING ISSUESCon's Case Fails 1. Deterrence Fails; studies prove this2. Harsher sentences increase crime; studies and logic prove this3. Con cannot prove the resolution "on balance;" he focuses on the justice system4. Rehab is Pro ground; TURN Con's argument5. Strict Justice promotes recrimination6. Subjectivity is Necessary for Justice Pro's Case Succeeds 1. Mercy is key for Self-release2. Mercy reduces Crime; studies prove this3. It's unjust to extract payment after a debt's been paid4. Mercy is key for healing; South Africa proves this Thus, the topic is affirmed. Please VOTE PRO! Thank you!