Order on Various Motions to Dismiss, Motions for Judgment ...
Motions
3
Practice Motions 1 THW allow forgiveness to be a mitigating circumstance Afrmative Context: • Mitigating circumstances is a consideration to lessen the penalties of one person. • The motion calls us to allow ‘forgiveness to be one of the mitigating circumstances. • !orgiveness is a waiver" in this context" most probabl# written b# the victim or the victims immediate famil#. $roblem: • The problem is that some cases push through even when the victim or the victims famil# alread# forgives the perpetrator. We must not stand for causing more in%ustice b undul# putting the accused in a disadvantage when the forgiveness from the victim himself is alread# obtained. &iagnosis: • The 'tate triviali(es the victims forgiveness as a consideration and dismisses his consent of the crime perpetrated against him. 'olution: • We ma)e ‘forgiveness as a mitigating circumstance because punishment should recogni(e both the interest of the 'tate and the victim. *rgument 1: Handle: +t balances the interest between the o,ended part# and the 'tate. -xplanation: The 'tate is there to provide protection for the general welfare of the public but it cannot appl# the law indiscriminatel# when it causes in%ustice. Mitigating circumstances lessens the sentence therefore it provides a leewa# for the victim to have a sa# in the process. This is more realistic because man is not made for law" law is made for man. +t considers the interest of the actors in the crime to provide retribution but at the same time consider that the victim also has a sa# being the o,ended part#. -xample: +f + was raped b# m# bo#friend and + decide to forgive the person and its part of m# ps#chological peace to actuall# see him reform himself" the 'tate should consider that rather because + am the person who was sub%ected to a violation of m# right in): Therefore if the 'tate considers m# voice as the victim in the process it provides a deterrent b# %ailing the victim and at the same time providing me the closure that + need through seeing m# perpetrator reformed. *rgument /: H:We unclog the %ails because of the shorter %ail time. -:The current situation is that %ails house more prisoners than what is humanl# allowed. +t is an in%ustice b# itself. +magine having 100 prisoners for a cell made for 0. 'ome would sa# thats impossible but unfortunatel#" +ts a realit# in our prisons -: +f we shorten %ail time a prisoner will sta# for a shorter time. Hence the use of a %ail cell will be maximi(ed. +f a cell is used m# 0 people and /0 people will be eventuall# released" then another /0 people can come in. Hence" we do not combine them li)e sardines. : When ma)e forgiveness a mitigating circumstance and when it is considered b# the courts" we have a probable leewa# for shorter sentences and shorter %ail time. We achieve %ustice for other prisoners who also deserve to be treated humanl# even in the %ails. 2ustice is not one wa# even the bill of rights recogni(es that *rgument 3: H: We give people a second chance b# ma)ing forgiveness a mitigating circumstance.
-
Upload
karla-rose-gutierrez -
Category
Documents
-
view
11 -
download
0
description
Debate Motions
Transcript of Motions
Afrmative
Context:
• The motion calls us to allow
‘forgiveness to be one of the mitigating circumstances.
• !orgiveness is a waiver" in this
context" most probabl# written b# the victim or the victims immediate famil#.
$roblem:
• The problem is that some cases
push through even when the victim or the victims famil# alread# forgives the perpetrator. We must not stand for causing more in%ustice b undul# putting the accused in a disadvantage when the forgiveness from the victim himself is alread# obtained.
&iagnosis:
• The 'tate triviali(es the victims
forgiveness as a consideration and dismisses his consent of the crime perpetrated against him.
'olution:
mitigating circumstance because punishment should recogni(e both the interest of the 'tate and the victim.
*rgument 1:
Handle: +t balances the interest between the o,ended part# and the 'tate.
-xplanation: The 'tate is there to provide protection for the general welfare of the public but it cannot appl# the law indiscriminatel# when it causes in%ustice. Mitigating circumstances lessens the sentence therefore it provides a leewa# for the victim to have a sa# in the process. This is more realistic because man is not made for law" law is made for man.
+t considers the interest of the actors in the crime to provide retribution but at the same time consider that the victim also has a sa# being the o,ended part#.
-xample: +f + was raped b# m# bo#friend and + decide to forgive the person and its part of m# ps#chological peace to actuall# see him reform himself" the 'tate should consider that rather because + am the person who was sub%ected to a violation of m# right
in): Therefore if the 'tate considers m# voice as the victim in the process it provides a deterrent b# %ailing the victim and at the same time providing me the closure that + need through seeing m# perpetrator reformed.
*rgument /:
H:We unclog the %ails because of the shorter %ail time.
-:The current situation is that %ails house more prisoners than what is humanl# allowed. +t is an in%ustice b# itself. +magine having 100 prisoners for a cell made for 0. 'ome would sa# thats impossible but unfortunatel#" +ts a realit# in our prisons
-: +f we shorten %ail time a prisoner will sta# for a shorter time. Hence the use of a %ail cell will be maximi(ed. +f a cell is used m# 0 people and /0 people will be eventuall# released" then another /0 people can come in. Hence" we do not combine them li)e sardines.
: When ma)e forgiveness a mitigating circumstance and when it is considered b# the courts" we have a probable leewa# for shorter sentences and shorter %ail time. We achieve %ustice for other prisoners who also deserve to be treated humanl# even in the %ails. 2ustice is not one wa# even the bill of rights recogni(es that
*rgument 3:
/ [PRACTICE MOTIONS]
-: 4# ma)ing them pa# for their crimes but ma)ing their sentences conducive for rehabilitation" we reintegrate them to societ# as productive citi(ens.
-: Manong mangbubu)o stole three cans of sardines. He must serve %ail time. 4ut should he sta# there forever5 +f he was alread# forgiven an#wa#" then %ust let him serve a shorter sentence. +f he sta#s there too long he will be hardened" vengeful and hateful
6C: !orgiveness as a mitigating circumstance.
• Theme of balancing of interests
• Concept of 7ehabilitation
Opposition
Clash: The a8rmative has diagnosed the problem 4ut proposed a solution which does not solve it at all
$roblem:
• The# claim problem is that
some cases push through even when the victim or the victims famil# alread# forgives the perpetrator. We must not stand for causing more in%ustice b undul# putting the accused in a disadvantage when the forgiveness from the victim himself is alread# obtained. True. We agree.
&iagnosis:
• The 'tate triviali(es the victims
forgiveness as a consideration and dismisses his consent of the crime perpetrated against him. True we agree.
4ut following that logic" wh# dont we ma)e it a 29'T+!+;< C+7C9M'T*;C-
&e=ne 2ustif#ing Circumstance &egi
'olution:
• We ma)e ‘forgiveness as a
29'T+!+;< circumstance because punishment should recogni(e both the interest of the 'tate and the victim.
*rgument 1:
-xplanation: The 'tate is there to provide protection for the general welfare of the public but it cannot appl# the law indiscriminatel# when it causes in%ustice. Mitigating circumstances lessens the sentence therefore it provides a leewa# for the victim to have a sa# in the process. This is more realistic because man is not made for law" law is made for man. +t considers the interest of the actors in the crime to provide retribution but at the same time consider that the victim also has a sa# being the o,ended part#.
-xample: +f + was raped b# m# bo#friend and + decide to forgive the person and its part of m# ps#chological peace to actuall# see him reform himself" the 'tate should consider that rather because + am the person who was sub%ected to a violation of m# right
in): Therefore if the 'tate considers m# voice in the process it provides a deterrent b# %ailing the victim and at the same time providing me the closure that + need through seeing m# perpetrator reformed.
*rgument /:
H:We unclog the %ails because of the shorter %ail time.
-:The current situation is that %ails house more prisoners than what is humanl# allowed. +t is an in%ustice b# itself. +magine having 100 prisoners for a cell made for 0. 'ome would sa# thats impossible but unfortunatel#" +ts a realit# in our prisons
-: +f we shorten %ail time a prisoner will sta# for a shorter time. Hence the use of a %ail cell will be maximi(ed. +f a cell is used m# 0 people and /0 people will be eventuall# released" then another /0 people can come in. Hence" we do not combine them li)e sardines.
Practice Motions 3
considered b# the courts" we have a probable leewa# for shorter sentences and shorter %ail time. We achieve %ustice for other prisoners who also deserve to be treated humanl# even in the %ails.
*rgument 3:
H: We give people a second chance b# ma)ing forgiveness a mitigating circumstance.
-: 4# ma)ing them pa# for their crimes but ma)ing their sentences conducive for rehabilitation" we reintegrate them to societ# as productive citi(ens.
-: Manong mangbubu)o stole three cans of sardines. He must serve %ail time. 4ut should he sta# there forever5 +f he was alread# forgiven an#wa#" then %ust let him serve a shorter sentence. +f he sta#s there too long he will be hardened" vengeful and hateful
6C: !orgiveness as a mitigating circumstance.
• Theme of balancing of interests
• Concept of 7ehabilitation
Context:
• The motion calls us to allow
‘forgiveness to be one of the mitigating circumstances.
• !orgiveness is a waiver" in this
context" most probabl# written b# the victim or the victims immediate famil#.
$roblem:
• The problem is that some cases
push through even when the victim or the victims famil# alread# forgives the perpetrator. We must not stand for causing more in%ustice b undul# putting the accused in a disadvantage when the forgiveness from the victim himself is alread# obtained.
&iagnosis:
• The 'tate triviali(es the victims
forgiveness as a consideration and dismisses his consent of the crime perpetrated against him.
'olution:
mitigating circumstance because punishment should recogni(e both the interest of the 'tate and the victim.
*rgument 1:
Handle: +t balances the interest between the o,ended part# and the 'tate.
-xplanation: The 'tate is there to provide protection for the general welfare of the public but it cannot appl# the law indiscriminatel# when it causes in%ustice. Mitigating circumstances lessens the sentence therefore it provides a leewa# for the victim to have a sa# in the process. This is more realistic because man is not made for law" law is made for man.
+t considers the interest of the actors in the crime to provide retribution but at the same time consider that the victim also has a sa# being the o,ended part#.
-xample: +f + was raped b# m# bo#friend and + decide to forgive the person and its part of m# ps#chological peace to actuall# see him reform himself" the 'tate should consider that rather because + am the person who was sub%ected to a violation of m# right
in): Therefore if the 'tate considers m# voice as the victim in the process it provides a deterrent b# %ailing the victim and at the same time providing me the closure that + need through seeing m# perpetrator reformed.
*rgument /:
H:We unclog the %ails because of the shorter %ail time.
-:The current situation is that %ails house more prisoners than what is humanl# allowed. +t is an in%ustice b# itself. +magine having 100 prisoners for a cell made for 0. 'ome would sa# thats impossible but unfortunatel#" +ts a realit# in our prisons
-: +f we shorten %ail time a prisoner will sta# for a shorter time. Hence the use of a %ail cell will be maximi(ed. +f a cell is used m# 0 people and /0 people will be eventuall# released" then another /0 people can come in. Hence" we do not combine them li)e sardines.
: When ma)e forgiveness a mitigating circumstance and when it is considered b# the courts" we have a probable leewa# for shorter sentences and shorter %ail time. We achieve %ustice for other prisoners who also deserve to be treated humanl# even in the %ails. 2ustice is not one wa# even the bill of rights recogni(es that
*rgument 3:
/ [PRACTICE MOTIONS]
-: 4# ma)ing them pa# for their crimes but ma)ing their sentences conducive for rehabilitation" we reintegrate them to societ# as productive citi(ens.
-: Manong mangbubu)o stole three cans of sardines. He must serve %ail time. 4ut should he sta# there forever5 +f he was alread# forgiven an#wa#" then %ust let him serve a shorter sentence. +f he sta#s there too long he will be hardened" vengeful and hateful
6C: !orgiveness as a mitigating circumstance.
• Theme of balancing of interests
• Concept of 7ehabilitation
Opposition
Clash: The a8rmative has diagnosed the problem 4ut proposed a solution which does not solve it at all
$roblem:
• The# claim problem is that
some cases push through even when the victim or the victims famil# alread# forgives the perpetrator. We must not stand for causing more in%ustice b undul# putting the accused in a disadvantage when the forgiveness from the victim himself is alread# obtained. True. We agree.
&iagnosis:
• The 'tate triviali(es the victims
forgiveness as a consideration and dismisses his consent of the crime perpetrated against him. True we agree.
4ut following that logic" wh# dont we ma)e it a 29'T+!+;< C+7C9M'T*;C-
&e=ne 2ustif#ing Circumstance &egi
'olution:
• We ma)e ‘forgiveness as a
29'T+!+;< circumstance because punishment should recogni(e both the interest of the 'tate and the victim.
*rgument 1:
-xplanation: The 'tate is there to provide protection for the general welfare of the public but it cannot appl# the law indiscriminatel# when it causes in%ustice. Mitigating circumstances lessens the sentence therefore it provides a leewa# for the victim to have a sa# in the process. This is more realistic because man is not made for law" law is made for man. +t considers the interest of the actors in the crime to provide retribution but at the same time consider that the victim also has a sa# being the o,ended part#.
-xample: +f + was raped b# m# bo#friend and + decide to forgive the person and its part of m# ps#chological peace to actuall# see him reform himself" the 'tate should consider that rather because + am the person who was sub%ected to a violation of m# right
in): Therefore if the 'tate considers m# voice in the process it provides a deterrent b# %ailing the victim and at the same time providing me the closure that + need through seeing m# perpetrator reformed.
*rgument /:
H:We unclog the %ails because of the shorter %ail time.
-:The current situation is that %ails house more prisoners than what is humanl# allowed. +t is an in%ustice b# itself. +magine having 100 prisoners for a cell made for 0. 'ome would sa# thats impossible but unfortunatel#" +ts a realit# in our prisons
-: +f we shorten %ail time a prisoner will sta# for a shorter time. Hence the use of a %ail cell will be maximi(ed. +f a cell is used m# 0 people and /0 people will be eventuall# released" then another /0 people can come in. Hence" we do not combine them li)e sardines.
Practice Motions 3
considered b# the courts" we have a probable leewa# for shorter sentences and shorter %ail time. We achieve %ustice for other prisoners who also deserve to be treated humanl# even in the %ails.
*rgument 3:
H: We give people a second chance b# ma)ing forgiveness a mitigating circumstance.
-: 4# ma)ing them pa# for their crimes but ma)ing their sentences conducive for rehabilitation" we reintegrate them to societ# as productive citi(ens.
-: Manong mangbubu)o stole three cans of sardines. He must serve %ail time. 4ut should he sta# there forever5 +f he was alread# forgiven an#wa#" then %ust let him serve a shorter sentence. +f he sta#s there too long he will be hardened" vengeful and hateful
6C: !orgiveness as a mitigating circumstance.
• Theme of balancing of interests
• Concept of 7ehabilitation
