The government should be required to pay the defense's attorney's reasonable attorney fees whenever losing a criminal jury trial.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
(1) I'm Pro; my opponent is Con.
(2) No new arguments in the final round.
(3) Characters limited to 8,000 characters per speech (i.e. Pro gets 8,000 characters in Pro's R1, Con gets 8,000 characters in Con's R1, and so on) -- anything above 8,000 characters should not be considered by judges; if a speech exceeds 8,100 characters, it is an auto-loss for the debater whose speech exceeded that amount. Characters include spaces.
(5) Judges should award a tie on "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points.
(6) Any effort to avoid debating the issue (the government should not be required to pay the defense's attorney's fees) is ill-advised.
(7) If there is any confusion about the topic, potential contenders are welcome to address me in the comment section and I shall do my best to clarify any loose ends before beginning the debate.
(8) Have fun! Life's too short not to!
"Trial costs already discourage prosecution "
I beg to differ. See the Knoxville, Tennessee rape case I cited. There, in addition to the rape case being premised on an accusation alone, the victim actually destroyed crucial evidence. A no brainier on cases not to waste taxpayer on, right? Nope. For many people, it takes actually being on the wrong end of a prosecution / FBI investigation to realize just how utterly f*cked up our judicial system is and how much money they will not hesitate to waste on sheer nonsense.
"Better representation for indigent defendants can be achieved more directly by hiring more public defenders and providing them with greater resources."
Which States are incredibly reluctant to do even with the threat of lawsuits. I would propose both solutions for reasons cited in the debate.
"Given all the injustice in the world - Why is this particular injustice important to you?"
Because most people have no idea it's happening and the news media downplays it beyond belief. I didn't know about it either until I saw it firsthand.
"Should the taxpayers have foot the $5 million legal bill for OJ's defense?"
Not only should the taxpayers foot the $5 million legal bill for OJ's defense, but they should subsequently fire the incompetent DAs who caused them to pay the bill in the first place. I'd also say that the demonstrable police corruption shown and proven by the OJ defense time would be well worth the price of $5 million and that the awareness raised towards men like the disgraced Detective Mark Furhman has surely fundamentally changed how the LAPD operates.
Trial costs already discourage prosecution and public defenders are salaried state employees. Better representation for indigent defendants can be achieved more directly by hiring more public defenders and providing them with greater resources. The resolution only indirectly furthers the stated policy interests, but there is an unstated interest that is directly furthered by the resolution - Justice. It's unfair when an innocent defendant pays for a prosecutor's mistake. Query: Given all the injustice in the world - Why is this particular injustice important to you? Should the taxpayers have foot the $5 million legal bill for OJ's defense?
I said everything I had to say anyway.
Thanks for the debate! Was fun!
I won't mention this in the debate, but I just got a client who the police arrested for assault despite substantial evidence (such as her bleeding profusely and the alleged victim barely having a scratch) that the victim was trying to kill her and her son with a knife. Sometimes (at least in America), you're taking a big risk just by calling the cops. And sometimes, getting charged is a matter who can call the cops first.
I had checked my character counter prior to posting my R1 and it was 7981 characters. After seeing your R1, I checked the character limit on my R1 and it was 7981 characters when I pasted it into word unformatted. I then checked again by pasting it with the formatting (which I don't usually do) and it was 8035 characters. Don't know why that is, but I have no problem providing evidence (probably video recording of me going into word and hitting the character count button) and making a policy argument on the issue.
On the other hand, I don't care about sources being counted in the character limit, so I'm fine stipulating that they are not counted . . . especially given the weird discrepancy in how stuff is being counted.
Thanks for clarifying!
should not further**********
they should discontinue their involvement
"You sob inexplicably as you sit in a corner"? I'd say that's some very explicable sobbing. 🙃