THBT: The police do more good than harm in the United States
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
The burden of proof in this debate is shared. Pro will attempt to prove that the police do more good than harm, and Con will attempt to prove that the police do more harm than good.
- The legal system and societal framework which perpetuate oppression and marginalization of impoverished communities are highly problematic.
- The police force contribute significantly to the perpetuation and reinforcement of this oppressive system.
- The problematic institutional setup of our society has a greater negative impact than the positive contributions made by the police force.
- Investing in rectifying the numerous broken components of our society would substantially diminish the necessity of relying on law enforcement.
- The United States has a significantly higher homicide rate than other affluent countries, with firearms being the most common weapon used.
- Income inequality, lack of social safety nets, and poverty contribute to the high homicide rate in the United States.
- The high level of firearm ownership in the United States is a contributing factor to the high homicide rate.
- Cultural factors, such as the glorification of violence and individualism, may also contribute to the high homicide rate.
- Nordic countries prioritize community policing and crime prevention over aggressive law enforcement tactics.
- Nordic police departments focus on building relationships with the communities they serve, including marginalized and vulnerable populations.
- Nordic countries have low levels of police brutality, and police officers rarely use deadly force.
- Nordic countries have lower crime rates than the United States.
- Nordic police agencies have implemented innovative technologies and data-driven approaches to improve their policing practices.
- Prison corruption is a widespread problem, with examples of corruption found in various areas of prison operations, including staff misconduct, contraband smuggling, and favoritism towards certain prisoners.
- Corruption can be facilitated by a lack of transparency, inadequate training, low salaries and poor working conditions, and poor oversight by management.
- Prevention and control measures include a focus on hiring and training, establishing clear policies and procedures, creating effective monitoring systems, and implementing effective investigative processes.
- The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 655 people per 100,000 population in prison.
- The U.S. also has the highest rate of incarceration of women and children, with 133 women and girls and 401 youth per 100,000 in custody.
- Incarceration rates vary widely across states in the U.S., with Louisiana having the highest rate at 1,052 per 100,000 population.
- The study suggests that the high rates of incarceration in the U.S. are due to a combination of factors, including harsh sentencing laws, a focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation, and racial disparities in the justice system.
- martial law
- anarchy
- African American residents are disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system in DC. Despite making up only 47% of the population, they make up 91% of individuals arrested for violent offenses and 85% of individuals arrested for drug offenses.
- Low-income residents are also disproportionately impacted by the justice system, with 84% of all arrests and 90% of all convictions occurring in neighborhoods where the poverty rate is above 20%.
- The use of money bail in DC has a significant impact on low-income residents, with 70% of individuals in DC jails being held on money bail.
- The report also highlights the racial and economic disparities in pretrial detention, with Black residents and low-income residents being more likely to be detained before trial.
- Finally, the report notes that the over-reliance on policing and incarceration has not effectively addressed crime in the city, and that community-based solutions that address the root causes of crime are needed.
- Without law enforcement, it’s impossible to prosecute tax cheats and effectively fund anything. Police prevent this problem.
- Without law enforcement, corrupt officials can commit violent crimes against minorities with impunity. Police prevent this problem.
- Without law enforcement, murderers, rapists, and molesters cannot be arrested. Police prevent this problem.
- Without law enforcement, anyone at any level of government can launder money meant for education and healthcare without facing legal consequences. Police prevent this problem.
- Without law enforcement, the rich will be just fine. They can fund bodyguards and private security. It’s the poor who will suffer at the hands of anyone powerful enough to harm them. Police prevent this problem.
- These benefits clearly outweigh any negatives caused by the police as an institution. The choice is simple: a police department accountable to democratically elected officials, or mercenaries working for the highest bidder.
the bop was to prove the police did more harm/good. savant has given emprical evidence of how the police do good, there is admittedly some evil done, even he admitted to it, but more good than evil.
neonrider66 however tried to argue not that the police did more harm, but that they did harm and needed to reform.
i will assume "police" refers to the U.S.A police and not police of other nations or U.N. police, etc because that is what pro's preamble, arguements and sources are regarding. However Con compares the police of other nations.
there is a disconnect of sorts on this issue. How can we prove there is more/less harm/good done by police if there is no country without police? all con did is compare police against police. as neither side gave an example of a policeless country. but this doesnt satisfy the bop.
continuing on, pro believes con's arguementation to be a non sequitar as he con argues more for reform than give evidence that the police did more harm. Con asserts the standard of pro regarding police vs no police countries is a bad standard as he asserts that no such country without police exist.
Since no example of a policeless nation was given (and most likely doesnt exist) con failed to meet bop, therefore pro wins by default.
I'll vote. I just read it all and then give my vote on it soon.
Please vote if you have time! Voting period is only one week.