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

I thank Con for responding in a timely manner. Now before I begin the direct refutation of Con's arguments, I would like to mention a few clarifications to what a policy debate means.In policy debate, we have a theoretical construct named "fiat power". This comes from the latin for "let it be done". (1)Basically, when the mandates are reasonable and using the correct enforcement (such as in this case the federal government), they immediately come to pass. An unreasonable mandate would be "Iraq will stop fighting and there will be world peace, America will be victorious". Obviously, this is mis-construing the resolution that states the united states federal government should reform its criminal justice system.In fact, this is in the judging manual for team policy debate (same as policy except with two people on each side). (2)Now that we are clear on this, let's move on to Con's arguments.Mandate 1. Mandatory RecordingCon argued that because previous similar legislation did not pass through Congress, my plan will not work. This is answered to in the introduction here about fiat power. Fiat power is there to eliminate arguments about "will this plan pass through Congress" and focus on the actual merits of the plan.Mandate 2. InadmissibilityI believe Con is confused on this issue. Before this plan, Officers would make handwritten notes of the interrogation, then submit that as evidence to the court. Under my plan, handwritten notes of the interrogations would not be acceptable simply because the police department has a video/audio recording of the interrogation. It is assumed I mean handwritten notes of the interrogation. Mandate 3. ExceptionsOnce again this plan will be passed because of fiat power, but only if you vote Pro, which is another reason to vote Pro.1) Conceded by Con2) Many times malfunction does not become apparent. A backup system would cost more. This is not a reason to vote against me, especially since malfunctions are rare. This is simply a safeguard.3) The reason this exception is in here is because it's in the statutes of the states that record interrogations. It's simply wise to have this in here, although it doesn't provide any kind of hindrance to the recording process. An example of national security is if the suspect knows about something that is not supposed to be publicized. Obviously, this is a rare occurance and nothing to roll over in your grave about.Funding: Here is how I got the estimate. This is a maximum estimate based on simple logic. Step 1: Each room costs 7,500 dollars at maximum. (3)Step 2: Interrogation rooms are most likely used at least 10 times a year.Step 3: There are 175,000 suspects at the federal level who get interrogated. (4)Step 4: Doing the math, there are therefore 17,500 interrogation rooms, ten suspects each.Step 5: Multiplying 17,500 by 7,500 per room gives us the estimated cost of: 131,000,000. I apologize it is off by 20 million, but given the number that is insignificant.The fact is, it's only an estimate, but it's a maximum estimate. 7,500 dollars is the most it can cost per room, and to think that interrogation rooms are used less than 10 times a year is unreasonable. Thus, this is an estimate of the maximum my plan will cost.Remember that the agencies that pay for this plan have substantial discretionary budgets, so this costs about .00001 times their budgets. Regarding Con's question, the police departments will choose where to get the interrogation systems. Advantage 1. Officers and suspects protected1. It is not true that my evidence is void without said definition, because this is from a credible source saying that interrogators can not use improper tactics because they're being recorded.2. Improper tactics are defined by the current system. It is not necessary to know how they are defined. An example of an improper tactic is physically abusing/torturing a victim. Once again, this definition is not necessary. The evidence is merely explaining that whatever police officers are not allowed to do in interrogations would be deterred by recording.3. Con ignored part 1 of this advantage: the fact that officers are protected from unwarranted allegationsAdvantage 2. Wrongful convictions1. The actual amount of false confessions is unknown: because they're false, and they're confessions. When someone confesses to a crime that he didn't do and gets sentenced, many times it is not found whether he is actually guilty or not. 2. This is not the only reason to pass the plan.Advantage 3 and 6.This is a misunderstanding of the context of Advantage 3. Let me requote it:"Recording alsoleads to greater efficiency, in that an objective record of the interrogation would reduce the need for and duration of pre-trial hearings on suppression of confessions, as there would be a clear and comprehensive record for the judge or jury to review."As you can see, it is BECAUSE the jury gets to review actual evidence that time is saved. Basically, the amount of disputes about what happened in the interrogation room if there is no recording are diminished. Less disputes = time saved. Secondly, where did Con get "12 hour interrogation" from?Advantage 4. Money SavedThe evidence is not based on my estimation, it's based on empirical experience that recording saves money in the long run. This has been done at a state level, so we can see from past experience that it saves money.One reason it saves money is the lowered amount of disputes. For example, if there is no recording of the interrogation, a defendant can claim he was physically abused and sue the interrogator, and he might even get away with it. In that case, the amount of money lost outweighs the money for the recording equipment with my plan. Let me quote another piece of evidence regarding cost:"Many police with whom we have spoken have observed that their expenditures are de minimus [minimal] when compared to the resultant savings. As discussed in Part IV, recording custodial interviews reduce pretrial disputes, lead to inreased plea bargains, reduce the risk of civil suits, and prevent convictions of innocent persons based on erroneous testimony." (5)Advantage 5. Improved interrogationI believe this is confusion on the part of Con. When an interrogator is trying to find faults in the suspect's testimony or draw out a confession, taking notes is simply required because he needs to be able to testify as to what the suspect said, and for him to testify he needs to remember what to say. Taking notes simply distracts him from the interrogation because he has to pause to write things down. Also remember this is evidence form a credible source, not just a statement by me. SignificanceAs stated before, 175,000 suspects are interrogated each year. 175,000 interrogations are changed by this plan. That is significant.ConclusionCon has been slightly confused on the issue of fiat power, which was the reason for his attack on mandate 1. I've responded to all his arguments, and I would like to note one thing:The only evidence Con has read is that there are two bills that tried to do the same thing (irrelevant), and that false confessions are rare (irrelevant, since false confessions are not the only reason to record).He seems to be ignoring that ALL of my advantages had evidence, and the citations are in the pastebin link. In order for him to prove his point he needs to reply to my evidence with credible evidence of his own. Thank you, and vote Pro to gain six significant advantages, and to step forward in technology. (1)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2)http://exp.etelos.com...http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us...;(Supreme Court Special Committee on Recording Interrogations) (4) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...;(Bureau of Justice Statistics) (5) http://business.highbeam.com... (Thomas P. Sullivan)