Last Update - Sun Mar 02 2025
HWS RR 2018 (Round Robin) Round 1, Room 4 Jason Xiao & Lee Chin Wee OG
83,83 84,84
PM | DPM
Jason Xiao Introduction I'm going to do two different things for you. First, I'm going to briefly outline what this debate is about, and second of all, I am going to move into three constructive arguments. First, I'm going to explain why we have an obligation to future victims that is violated through using retribution as a means of sentencing. Second of all, I want to talk about moral luck and why these individuals who committed these crimes aren’t culpable for the degree of harm. Third of all, I want to talk about the disproportionate nature of the justice system and why this introduces more racial bias into sentencing and other problems. Model It also means that you wouldn’t lengthen jail sentences on that basis. It also means that the treatment of prisoners is oftentimes going to change as well. So in countries where places like corporal punishment and the death penalty apply, we support them in removing that because that is a gratuitous punishment that doesn't actually serve the purposes of the criminal justice system and doesn't serve to actually rehabilitate them, but it's merely vindictive. So all those additional things like solitary confinement—when not used for the safety of other prisoners,etc—would be prohibited. Only when it is actually for a proper legitimate purpose of the justice system, apart from retribution, would we allow those extra tools to be used. 1st Argument I think that the purpose of the criminal law is significantly different from that of civil law, and that for two significant reasons. The first reason is that you already have the civil law to get compensation for victims in many circumstances. So for instance, the problem of assault by actual bodily harm in the United Kingdom often leads to both civil court cases in order to get financial compensation. If you have a significant injury that means you can't work anymore, you can get compensation within civil courts as well. That means that they serve two different functions, and the reason why we classify certain things as criminal matters is because they have an effect on the public writ large. Things like murder aren't just about the individual who is harmed, but they affect our ability to feel safe within society. These are reasons why the criminal justice system serves a different function. As such, there should be less of a focus on the individual because we are compensating in other ways. The system is designed in that way and warrants focusing on future victims and societal goals. The second thing to consider when we weigh these interests is that we can't change the past. We can't change the psychological trauma that has occurred or the immense mental harm that's been done, but what we can change is the future—victims being harmed by poor rehabilitation and the fact that we might lead to more crime happening in the future. Therefore, we should care about those victims. So why is it that this is a specific means in which we can stop poor sentencing that oftentimes causes worse outcomes? Because retribution oftentimes precludes the ability for people to actually rehabilitate. It means you oftentimes get resentment towards the state for fortuitous punishment or punishments that seem unjust to the individual. That means that they're more likely to join gangs to find a community within prisons and go out into the world with those gang connections because they feel isolated within that prison, even if they were never in a gang to begin with. It means they are going to be isolated, so they have a loss of skills, a significant opportunity cost in terms of learning, and worse families that are probably more in poverty at the point at which a significant breadwinner was taken away. Finally, you have significant effects on employment perceptions where people no longer want to employ these people or treat them well. I understand this has to be weighed against the closure of present victims, but what we want to consider is that this oftentimes continues. Other present victims have family and friends, and it doesn't take into account the closure that is necessary for the family and friends of the person who has committed the crime.Those families are also equally innocent, and you're punishing them by punishing this individual. Second of all, let's talk about moral luck and why the individual isn’t culpable. Sure. Closing: “How can you have some rehabilitation without having to completely exclude retribution?” Because retribution by nature necessarily reduces the effectiveness of rehabilitation. When you have retributive mechanisms, that means that you necessarily have to impose harsher punishments and harsher conditions, which will make these people resent the state when it oftentimes puts them in jail when they wouldn't have been in jail otherwise, reducing the ability to live fruitful lives. So in terms of moral luck, first of all, I think the vast majority of individuals generally aren’t culpable. Well, this is a bit of a deterministic argument, but people are oftentimes dictated by the backgrounds that they have and the genetics that they possess. That means that it's morally arbitrary whether or not we punish these people for those crimes because they oftentimes don't have control over those circumstances. As such, it's unfair to put on labels of blameworthiness when they have no control over these factors in the very first place. Opening: “How do you think this would impact the weight put on victim impact statements?” I think that's probably going to reduce the weight of victim impact statements. I think that’s fine. So, in terms of a second layer as to why these individuals aren’t culpable, it's also important to note that there's a degree of moral luck in terms of the victim. For instance, this means that someone who has attempted to kill someone versus a person who has killed someone are treated significantly differently, even though morally they have taken the same action. Just because they're bad at shooting a gun doesn't mean that they should have different moral standards placed upon them. It also means that victims who are particularly different are also treated specially. A case in the UK, “R vs Dear,” involved a situation where a person reopened their stitch wounds after they had gotten medical treatment, and the original person who shot them was convicted of murder. Oftentimes, you have to take the victim as they come, and that means that even if they're particularly frail and most people would not be harmed by that action, if they get murdered, that is put onto you, even if you couldn't foresee it and even if it wasn't something that was likely as a consequence of your actions. Finally, why is this a disproportionate way of sentencing? I think that this is oftentimes a way in which you make racial bias move into the process, because more than anything, retribution is based on that gut reaction of how horrible something is. People naturally perceive a crime committed by a white man against a black woman or black man as significantly less grievous than a black man attacking a white woman, and that's just a subjective, inherent gut reaction. Now, I acknowledge that there's going to be racial bias in other areas of the justice system, but I think this is uniquely the case because it can’t be researched or quantified like looking at how sentencing affects rehabilitation. It is something that is inherently unquantifiable, and this oftentimes settles in indirect ways, so you can’t directly measure it within a judge. That means that you can’t hold them accountable and take them off important cases or racialized cases when they have these subjective and inherited decisions which aren’t based on research or quantifiable things. I said I think that retribution is a tool in which justices and juries are able to use the justice system to unfairly attack individuals who aren't really guilty and hurt future victims. Very proud to propose. Lee Chin Wee DPM 84, 84 Youtube Link (Timestamped):HERE And I think this sums up our position on retribution, that murderers and rapists don't deserve mercy, but it's incumbent upon us, as members of a civilised society, to strive towards a kinder and gentler sort of criminal justice system. I'm going to talk to you about three things and rebuttal will be integrated. One, on prospective justice preventing crime. Two, on moral luck and the inherent unfairness of retributive sentencing. And third of all, on racial prejudice and how this manifests uniquely in retribution. So, let's get cracking. First, on prospective justice. The premise of our case is that future victims matter the most in this debate, because we can change the circumstances of the future, but we can't reach out full-time and change the past. All those arguments of victim impact statements and closure, and this is important, their argument concedes that the psychological harm suffered by victims in the aftermath of crime is morally significant. Therefore, if we can prove that we reduce crime in the future, as a consequence of our policy, we also reduce the need for closure in the long run. Therefore, by their own metric, we win. So, in order to win this debate, we just need to prove that we prevent crime. And there are three mechanisms that Jason gave you that was not responded to by opening opposition. Claim Number one, when you focus on retribution, you create a sense of learned helplessness. Analysis Prisoners start believing that they have no agency when they are items upon whom the state can inflict violence upon. Mechanism They are less receptive to rehabilitation, at the point at which you are trained to give up agency by being locked up, having a routine control for you, by being chucked in solitary confinement. The second mechanism that Jason gave you is that you create or engender resentment towards the state. Prisons are now actively seen as the very organs of state that are being used to oppress and punish you, creating a cognitive dissonance, when these same structures are also meant to help you get a better life. The third mechanism that Jason gave you is that it creates incentives to find or curative support structures within prison. Impact Retribution, by necessity later, creates an environment of isolation. For example, you can't see family members, or you might get thrown into solitary confinement for a minor infection. Sad support structures, you then turn to support structures that are available in prison. For example, prison gangs. I Admit, on our side, there will still be some prison gangs because, you know, gangs are just a thing on both sides. But on your side, you have more of them. You create more chances for recidivism and mingling with individuals who might lead you to commit more crime in the future. These three mechanisms alone win us the debate by opening opposition's metric. Rebuttal What do they tell us? First of all, vigilante justice. Four responses. People tend not to want to get a criminal record. If, you know, I lynch people on the streets, I'm still going to be unable to find a job in the future. And in areas of low crime, this is my second response, where there is low trust in the state, there is no comparative harm. See areas like Nogales in Mexico, where, you know, vigilante justice and rate of recidivism are already really high. Third response:It is unclear that loss of public faith in the criminal justice system is a unique harm in opening opposition. Because there is an equal and opposite harm when minorities see the state as a violent oppressor when it focuses upon retribution. In fact, we think this harm is more important. Because at the point that we can tie minorities to the state that's already wronged in the past, do not trust your criminal justice system. You are less likely to do things like call police when you see things are going wrong. It increases crime rate, it increases harm. Oh, before I go on, yes. POI “Your partner talks a lot about how, like, there's punishments inside of jail, like you could be locked in solitary, you're not even given access to your family. Those are all post-sentencing. Those are all delivered by the warden as punishments. That doesn't have anything to do with criminal sentencing and retribution.” Yeah, but it's also part of our model. We, by fiat, are also one step out of the debate. That's why we are explaining this in the first place, right? Also, as part of sentencing, the judge can also say you have a much shorter prison sentence, and as a consequence, the chance of you being mistreated in jail is diminished. There's some- So, for example, the chance of you getting parole is a lot higher. So I'm not sure why you want to focus on this technicality. I'm just really confused. Fourth response on vigilante justice. This presents a very misanthropic perception of society. We argue that governments affect public perception in very much the same way that the public affects governmental behaviour. For example, support for the death penalty in the UK. Before the government decided to abolish the death penalty, support for the death penalty was 70%. After the government established, you know, a banning of the death penalty, this has fallen to about 25% right now. Impact We argue that the government is often a vanguard for changing social perception because it changes the norm for how we see society. Then we have the reopening of positions, some social contractarian analysis, i.e. Bernie madoff. two responses. What? We argue... that Bernie Madoff still feels something, for example, he has to pay the money back to victims, for example, he can never return to securities trading because no one's going to trust Madoff's securities. But my second response is that, look, it is not clear that deterrence is a prima facie most important part of criminal justice. If not, we would hang white-collar criminals in front of Wall Street. And the reason why you need to strike a balance is because you need to ask yourself, what is the marginal increase of deterrence at the point at which we focus on retribution? And we argue, No. You know its No? Because white-collar criminals don't just think, oh, it would really suck to get thrown in jail. They also think, shit, it would really suck if I lost my reputation on Wall Street and I can't go back to the lifeline I once led. So obviously, maybe on your side, you end up with a small number fewer white-collar criminals. But we argue that vast majority of white-collar criminals are not just deterred as a consequence of punishment, they are deterred as a consequence of being caught and not being able to return to the original lives. Bernie Madoff:American financier who executed the largest Ponzi scheme in history, defrauding thousands of investors out of an estimated $65 billion over the course of at least 17 years.Madoff attracted investors by claiming to generate large, steady returns through an investing strategy called split-strike conversion, a legitimate trading strategy. What Madoff was really doing was depositing client funds into a single bank account that he used to pay existing clients who wanted to cash out. He funded the redemptions by attracting new investors and their capital. This is the classic Ponzi scheme model: Take in a constant stream of new money while paying enough back to maintain the appearance of outsized gains. Inevitably, the fraud unraveled when the market turned sharply lower in late 2008 and too many clients sought to withdraw their money. But before I go on, go! POI “Fine, you strike a balance, so do we.If it turns out everyone is joining gangs because they're pissed at the state, we'll just reduce sentences. Happy to do that.” No, I mean, you could do that, but what I'm arguing is that that still doesn't deal with the individual problems when it comes to how individuals interact with the prison system. I think these are still inherent to retribution that you haven't dealt with in our case. Rebuilding PM Next two things. First, on moral luck. Jason told you the premise that moral luck cuts both ways. First, it heavily circumscribes autonomy. Second, it affects the consequences of a crime, not really dealt with on OO. Instead, what they told us is that this treats everyone equally, leading to overcrowded prisons. But I'm not sure why that's the case. Because we are punishing you for your crime. We are only locking you up insofar as we think that that's the best way to rehabilitate you. So, for example, if you were caught for drink driving, if we think that you going to Alcoholics Anonymous and pledging not to drink again is effective rehabilitation and you show that you continually go back, we won't lock you up at all. But if you don't turn up at Alcoholics Anonymous, then we might have to lock you up to ensure that you get the appropriate rehabilitation. So we will only punish you insofar as it facilitates rehabilitation. In fact, it is your side that is egregiously long prison sentences. When society wants people to be locked up for a really, really long time. See it in Mexico, see it in Brazil. Okay, last area on racial prejudice and how this manifests uniquely in retribution. Jason told you that our society's very activistic desire for retribution stems from a gut primal response in wanting to put something right when we see the harm has been committed. Unfortunately, this same gut primal response is also affected by things like how we see racial dynamics, how we perceive of the oppressor and how we perceive of the victim. And very often, statistics indicate to us that individuals of racial dis-privilege, for example, Malay people back home from where I come from in Singapore, or African Americans in the US, have disproportionately long sentences as a very result of this primal instinct. For all these reasons, I am so incredibly proud to propose.
PM
83,83
Youtube Link (Time Stamped):HERE
The criminal justice system is a messy and imprecise tool which significantly hampers the liberties of individuals and implies social censure, we think often in an unjust way. On opening government, Chin (DPM) and I believe that the criminal justice system should sentence not based on our visceral gut reactions as to how horrible crime is but rather the actual proof in terms of what would lead to better outcomes for society, ensuring that we get fewer future victims and a more just society on aggregate. As said, we are remarkably proud to propose.
To begin with, the model. I think that the model is fairly simple. This is a model that applies all throughout the world. In terms of what it actually looks like, this means that you're going to get less upgrades from things like non-custodial sentence towards a jail sentence because of things like the fact that the crime was horrific, and instead you consider things like whether or not it's best for rehabilitation.
To begin with, I am going to stop and talk about the wider obligation to future victims and why we best succeed on that principle.
Prospective weighing to explain why both families of the victim and the criminal is harmed (on comparative because of harsher/longer sentencing)
Furthermore, we're going to suggest to you that oftentimes you want closure to alleviate the psychological harm that has been created, but insofar as we can protect future victims from that psychological harm, we win on that issue. So on aggregate, future victims are more important.
Introduction
To quote Shakespeare, the quality of mercy is not strained, it falls gently, like rain.