If illegal drugs are decriminalized, inmates convicted of drug-related offenses...
...should be released.
True..., True
Side Score: 4
|
 |
Wait..., What? No!
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Both sides can use modus ponens. which is the following valid logical form If A then B A Therefore B The side against seems to be saying If you broke the law then you go to prison for that amount of time you broke the law when it was a law you go to prison for that amount of time regardless if the law is eliminated for you well broke the law. The following is how i view it, lets include some philosophy about law in our premises The purpose of law is to insure that rights are protected If a action is determined to violate rights then to protect those rights from being further violated from that person a person deserves and needs to be put under corrective sanctions It is later determined that a action doesn't actually violate rights (in the same conditions it was previously thought it did of course) in such a way which warrants corrective sanctions. there for a person shouldn't be put under corrective sanctions for that action. thus we have a condition of the logical form modus ponus if A then B A therefore B becoming if A then B not A Further more to continue with B with out A being satisfied would be to violate the rights of the person being held by unjustly imprisoning him. Thus keeping inmates lock up under what used to be a offense, would not be justified and actually work counter to the purpose of good law. Its against a persons rights to continue with the sentence. A person may even deserve compensation for the time, money etc lost to him due to his imprisonment. Side: True..., true
This is a no-brainer. If I pass judgment that a friend of mine had sex with my girlfriend an therefore I should beat him up everyday for three months so I'll feel better about it and two months into the beatings I find out it wasn't him, should I continue to beat this guy up for an additional month just because it's what I decided on back when I was being stupid? Side: True..., true
1
point
|
1
point
Absolutely not. If they commit a crime, regardless of it's status at a later date, it is still a crime. If it is decriminalized say, five years into their sentence, they should not be set free because it was illegal at the time during which they committed said act. Side: Wait..., What? No!
I have to agree with the base of the statement. If one commits a crime, the person is still a criminal and should be punished as such. I do, however, believe that some instances require convicted individuals be released. If, for instance, it is declared not within the jurisdiction of the government to prosecute these individuals based on a certain law, they should be released as they had no right to be there in the first place. In the case of this argument, it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the government to regulate certain substances, so the inmates should not be released. Side: Wait..., What? No!
Its like here in CA, (in a way) term limits for governors were put in after the resignation of the gov. Jerry Brown. The (new) term limits law doesn't apply to him for that fact. That's why now he is running again for governor. A law is a law, not a pardon. Side: Wait..., What? No!
1
point
thats backwords. A law was made first then followed later in that situation. The question is asking if a law wasn't followed first then abolished later if the current effects of the law should be abolished as well. If the basis for keeping someone in jail is that they once upon a time broke the law, but the law was later abolished, then unless conditions are different now then what they were it is clear the law shouldn't of been followed to begin with and the persons convicted released. Side: True..., true
1
point
|
