Head-2-Head: Murderers, Pedophiles, and Rapists Should Lose their Rights

Participants
Pro - lombozo
Con - semperfortis

Terms

The terms for this debate are as follows:

1. Participants will take turns, and each will post an opening statement, one rebuttal and a closing statement.

2. Members must respond within 96 hours of the previous post. With an exception on weekends.

3. Maximum of 10,000 characters per post.

4. Each participant may post no more than one image to the debate thread.

5. This will be judged by an anonymous staff member.

6. However, comments from any Fighter will be welcome in this thread after an H2H moderator has made a post declaring the debate finished.

7. These rules may be modified by mutual agreement prior to beginning the debate. The changes will be made to this post by an H2H moderator.

8. lombozo will post first, at which time the debate will begin.

General Rules

NOTE: These would normally not be listed here, but since they're under construction and subject to change, I've included them here to reduce confusion. -- Majic

The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:

1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.

2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.

4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.

5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.

6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.

7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.

8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.

Participation

These are the proposed terms for this debate. Participants should ensure that they understand and agree to them prior to posting to this thread.

Once a post has been made, the terms are binding.

Good Luck!

[edit on 4/6/2007 by chissler]

First I would like to thank Chissler, and Majic for setting the stage for this debate. I would also like to acknowledge my admiration and respect for my worthy opponent Semperfortis. I am looking forward to reading the views of a man who has "an inside look" to the criminal element that most of us do not have.

It is my position that perpetrators of agregious crimes forfeit their rights upon committing said crime. By agregious, I am speaking of Murderers, Rapists & Pedophiles. I am not speaking of a guy smoking a joint, or an elderly person on a fixed income shoplifting a necessity because they simply can't afford it. I am speaking of particularly heinous criminals.

I will give examples of several high profile cases when presenting my position. It is my intention to provide a lucid, objective position as to why I believe so strongly that these criminals deserve none of the rights which the general populace take for granted every day.

I start with the case of George David Edenfield, and his mother and father David & Peggy. George David, and his Father abducted, took turns sexually molesting 6 year old Christopher Michael Barrios while Peggy watched. After repeatedly raping 6 year old Christopher, they murdered him, put his body in a black trash bag, then dumped it along the side of a road. It is important to note that George David is a repeat offender of child molestation. David had a prior for incest. This is a crime where I absolutely believe that the perpetrators lose their rights. I ask simply, why do they deserve any more than a tiny, dark cell which is temperature controlled just enough so that it will barely stop freezing, or heat stroke? Just enough food to stop starvation. Nothing else. No TV, no books, radios, phone calls, visitors. Nothing.

I also use as an example Joseph Smith. He was caught on a car wash surveillance tape abducting 11 year old Carlie Bruccia. After abducting her, he sexually assaulted her, then murdered her leaving her body in a field. Again I ask, why should this man have any rights whatsoever. Yes he has been convicted, and sentenced to death. He dared to cry during sentencing.

I could give example after example of these types of crimes. Another high profile criminal Ted Bundy made a mockery of the legal sytem. Posing as his own lawyer, smirking, and in general putting on a floor show. Highly intelligent, he enjoyed himself, and hid behind his rights. Why let this charade go on? It's insulting to every law abiding citizen.

One of the most barbaric monsters of all time Charles Ng also made a mockery out of the judicial system. He was his own counsel, and also hid behind his rights. His antics were absurd, and caused too many taxpayer dollars to be spent.

Now there is ONE right that I believe these criminals do have, and that's to have a quick and speedy trial. I say the trials should absolutely be immediate. I don't want to ever hear again "Well, Mr. Doe, it was several years ago, how can you be sure that you remember it exactly as it happened?". Immediate trials. Everyone knows my views on capital punishment, but that is another subject entirely. If these convicts can't be euthanized IMMEDIATELY after conviction, then the minimal incarceration cells I described should be home to these folks for the rest of their lives.

As my opponent is quite wise, I am sure I will be questioned with "When will it stop? Where do we draw the line?" I will answer that question in advance. If you murder. If you rape. If you commit acts of pedophilia. Do any of these things, and you know going in that your cards up. Not disimilar to the laws which state if you commit a crime with a gun you're going to do time. Period. Felons know that if they commit a crime with a gun, what to expect.

How many times have we heard of a criminal get off due to some loophole? An officer is having troubles at home, his kids have the flu, he's pulled over several people today, most of whom made up one cockamamie story after another for their antics, he has a mountain of paperwork waiting for him back at the station when the call comes in, and he now apprehends a murderer. The officer has more on his plate than he should, and he screws up the reading of the Miranda rights. Guess what happens now? The perpetrator can get off on a technicality. Why? Because of his "rights".

Again I ask, why should someone who plans, then commits these agregious acts have the ability to hide behind their rights? I wish I had free healthcare. I wish I could get a free education, free AC & heat, free meals, ability to workout for free, ability to sue the prison or the government because something wasn't to my liking.

Here's 3 examples of lawsuits that prisoners filed against the prisons.

An inmate who sued the prison superintendent after he claimed he injured his ankle while sliding into second base during a softball game.

An inmate who sued because the prison law library didn't contain 19th Century volumes of the Supreme Court Reporter.

An inmate who sued because the pieces of cake served in the prison cafeteria were too small.

Sorry, but if you want rights then don't commit murder. Don't rape someone. Don't committ crimes, especially those of a sexual nature against children.

I look forward to hearing your views Semperfortis. The floor is yours Sir.

Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles Should Lose Their Rights

Allow me to say I am honored to debate an opponent as eloquent and informed as Lombozo.

Good Luck my Friend…

Also a special Thank You to Chissler for the work he is putting in to make this possible.


Let us examine the word “Rights”

Many “Rights” are granted the citizens of the United States, both constitutionally and those considered “Inalienable”
When one is considering abolishing those rights, the obvious questions that come to mind are
1. Which rights are being abolished?
And
2. Who determines number 1?

The Rights granted to us by the Constitution and subsequent amendments were not given to exception. That is to say, all citizens are to be granted these rights as a matter of course. This removes the obvious and potential disaster of human input and prejudice in the assigning of, or eradication of, rights in general or rights specific.

Whether general or specific, those rights were written without disclaimer for a very sound reason. So that no one individual, no one foundation or league of citizens could eliminate, eradicate or subjugate those rights.

Let’s examine this as it pertains to a specific example.

Fifth Amendment: Self Incrimination being part of the subject.

If the right against self incrimination were removed from any individual, they could then without prejudice, be forced to divulge any and/or all information they posses as it relates to a charge or allegation. This takes us into another complexity. That of how much force can be used to compel the testimony? Also, what individual or groups of individuals are going to be responsible for determining that amount of force that is to be used? How long before torture would become the rule instead of the exception?

Again we see the propensity for abuse being developed.

Another excellent example would be:

Eighth Amendment: Specifically that prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Now I suppose the argument could be made that due to the heinous nature of their crimes, “they deserve everything that happens to them”. One need only imagine the “everything” this encompasses to understand the full implications of losing this singularly important guarantee.

These very Rights that would be removed from an individual by my opponent are there to ensure, to guarantee, that this is the individual that perpetrated the crime in question. We lose that guarantee the moment we lose the rights we are discussing. The possibility for a mistaken conviction rises astronomically and innocent people would suffer.

As difficult as it is to accept, it is truly better that a hundred guilty perpetrators go free before we convict and sentence one innocent person.

Possibilities:

Within the history of man, torture has been developed to a fine art. Drawing and quartering, rape, sodomy and mutilation are in reality some of the milder examples of what one human has done to another over the centuries. In places around the globe these practices continue. The Founding Fathers envisioned a more enlightened civilization for us, their children. Hence the protection afforded the United States citizen against such deplorable actions. Are we prepared to resort to this type of behavior to ensure the “ends justify the means?”

The concept of one’s individual rights is not a new concept. The right of the individual to own personal property dates back centuries, as does that individuals right to protect that property. Other more ethereal rights are significantly newer concepts that have developed with the advent of and progression of civilization. They are no less important, no less necessary than their older and more substantial cousins.

This very idea of civilization, this freedom we all enjoy, demands of us that those individuals we deem unsavory, even despicable, are afforded the same rights as any other person. In point of fact, it is even more important that those Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles receive their full compliment of rights within the law. Even more than normal law abiding citizens. For to afford your average citizen these rights is easy, it is far more difficult when applied to criminals.

The principle that we, as a nation, provide these rights and protections even to, NAY ESPECIALLY to, our despots of society is the framework that defines us as a civilized nation. It is the very nature of this idealization that has made this nation the shining example of freedom all over the world.

Ben Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Are we not securing our own liberty by treating each and every person the same within the law? What do we lose as a nation, as a cohesive group, if we sacrifice the very foundations of fair treatment and equality to do what? To exact revenge in order to satisfy some inner need to see suffering to remedy the failings of society that created the monster that perpetrated the crime initially?

Thomas Jefferson said: “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

To afford rights and liberties to those persons that have shunned the civilization we afford them and acted in ways abhorrent to our sensitivities is the very nature of that tempestuous sea. We can not; we must not ever sink to that level of despotism in our vain and emotional efforts to punish those that do.

Winston Churchill said: “Courage is the first of human qualities, because it is the quality which guarantees all others.”

It takes true courage to face someone that has perpetrated and committed the crimes we are discussing; to face them, and ensure them that they will receive fair and equal treatment under the law. To let them know that we as a nation will not allow ourselves to be lowered to the same level they have retreated to in order to exact our justice. It is this very same courage that is displayed in defense attorneys. Perhaps the system has become somewhat subjugated with liberal concepts and the attorney’s confused understanding of their duties. For now we have defense attorneys that believe their entire goal is to win, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the client. That is a price we must pay for the continuance of our civilization, for the confidence in the survival of our souls.

For was it not Friedrich Nietzsche that said:
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

He also said: “But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!”

Wise words that we should take heed to in these troubled times.

We must not allow ourselves to become that which we despise in attempts to stop what we despise.

Now my opponent has the floor.

Semper

Many “Rights” are granted the citizens of the United States, both constitutionally and those considered “Inalienable”
When one is considering abolishing those rights, the obvious questions that come to mind are
1. Which rights are being abolished?
And
2. Who determines number 1?

As I've stated clearly, I believe that virtually all rights should be taken from the criminals who commit these heinous crimes. I must point out the obvious here, so please forgive my redundancy. The criminals who commit these acts choose to do so. They often times stalk a victim, much like a hunter does. They then plan their method of attack, then actually commit the crime.
A panel, perhaps the Supreme Court should be the ones who determine which rights are to be abolished. Once these rules are determined, it will be common knowledge. "So it is written, so it is done". Then there would be no gray area. Neither with which rights are abolished, or to whom would be a candidate to have these rights taken away.

The Rights granted to us by the Constitution and subsequent amendments were not given to exception. That is to say, all citizens are to be granted these rights as a matter of course. This removes the obvious and potential disaster of human input and prejudice in the assigning of, or eradication of, rights in general or rights specific.

Good point. Rights ARE given to all citizens. I thank god every day that I enjoy the rights that I have. If there is a mandate which specifically states every point of the loss of rights, then prejudice and human error would not play a role. Again we are talking ONLY about the felons who commit these specific acts. I'm not advocating, or implying taking away the rights of my next door neighbor because it aggravates me that he never maintains his yard.

Fifth Amendment: Self Incrimination being part of the subject.
If the right against self incrimination were removed from any individual, they could then without prejudice, be forced to divulge any and/or all information they posses as it relates to a charge or allegation. This takes us into another complexity. That of how much force can be used to compel the testimony? Also, what individual or groups of individuals are going to be responsible for determining that amount of force that is to be used? How long before torture would become the rule instead of the exception?

Another excellent point. As much as I would like to dodge this point, I cannot. I'm not advocating the use of torture. We could make it simple. Much like the breathalyzer rules. Refuse to blow, then guilt is assumed.
Do much the same thing - refuse to answer the questions, then guilt is assumed. All under the observation and advice of lawyers of course.

Eighth Amendment: Specifically that prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
These very Rights that would be removed from an individual by my opponent are there to ensure, to guarantee, that this is the individual that perpetrated the crime in question. We lose that guarantee the moment we lose the rights we are discussing. The possibility for a mistaken conviction rises astronomically and innocent people would suffer.

Again, I'm not advocating torture. You stated clearly that you feel that the guarantee of convicting the correct individual would be lost the moment that the 5th and 8th ammendments were abolished. I respectfully disagree with your premise. Frankly, I don't see how things would change that much. I understand what you're trying to say, and it is a valid point.
The 5th - The criminal can't say "I take the 5th." Either Yes or no.
The 8th - The criminal would be under constant video surveillance with a feed to a 3rd party "whistle blower" committee. Torture comes into play, the world knows about it in minutes.

As difficult as it is to accept, it is truly better that a hundred guilty perpetrators go free before we convict and sentence one innocent person.

Something we agree upon.

This very idea of civilization, this freedom we all enjoy, demands of us that those individuals we deem unsavory, even despicable, are afforded the same rights as any other person. In point of fact, it is even more important that those Murderers, Rapists and Pedophiles receive their full compliment of rights within the law. Even more than normal law abiding citizens. For to afford your average citizen these rights is easy, it is far more difficult when applied to criminals.

While I admire your ethics and passion, I will go on record as saying I find this point misguided. "More than normal law abiding citizens."? Maybe I'm mistaken. Are you saying that the BTK killer deserves more rights than my family does? Ironic, because these criminals do get more rights than my family. I, like you, work hard every day to provide the best life I can for my family. Aside from a speeding ticket, and some marijuana in my high school days, I've broken no laws. We get by, but there is not alot of "gravy" left over after the monthly bills are paid. There are things we have to do without. Some of those very things we do without are afforded to these criminals while they are doing "hard time". These criminals should have nothing.

It takes true courage to face someone that has perpetrated and committed the crimes we are discussing; to face them, and ensure them that they will receive fair and equal treatment under the law. To let them know that we as a nation will not allow ourselves to be lowered to the same level they have retreated to in order to exact our justice. It is this very same courage that is displayed in defense attorneys. Perhaps the system has become somewhat subjugated with liberal concepts and the attorney’s confused understanding of their duties. For now we have defense attorneys that believe their entire goal is to win, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the client. That is a price we must pay for the continuance of our civilization, for the confidence in the survival of our souls.

I agree with your point on the defense attorneys. It's all about dollars, and notoriety. The fact of obvious guilt is swept under the rug as a dirty little secret. "A price we must pay"? No, I say it is a problem which needs to be addressed and fixed.

I turn the floor over to you Sir.

Good post Lombozo.

My Rebuttal:

The criminals who commit these acts choose to do so.

Now here we must each define the phrase “Choose to do so” for ourselves.
This is necessary because the psychology of criminal conduct is anything but an exact science. The compulsions, drives and reasons any one commits such crimes are as varied as the individuals. “Choose to do so” is a blanket statement that fails to take into account those individuals that suffer from compulsive disorders and thus can “not” choose to “not” do a thing. These individuals are still considered “sane” and responsible for their actions, and so are tried in accordance with the law; yet do they deserve the eradication of their rights as fully as one that truly does stalk their victim? (One example of many differing psychological aspects of criminology) Again, this begs the question; under your system, who draws the line and where is it drawn?

This of course brings up the psychological differences in each individuals motive for committing the crime. As a scientifically advanced society, we are still light years away from understanding the compulsion to commit such heinous acts. By removing their rights we are advocating, consciously or not, treating these people as animals while we still do not fully understand them. What does that make us my friend?

A panel, perhaps the Supreme Court should be the ones who determine which rights are to be abolished. Once these rules are determined, it will be common knowledge. "So it is written, so it is done". Then there would be no gray area. Neither with which rights are abolished, or to whom would be a candidate to have these rights taken away.

Being a Felon already carries with it certain loses as it were. One loses the ability to vote in most states. Certain employment opportunities are denied as well as specific civic positions after release. Prior to that of course they lose the singular right of freedom and certain amounts of privacy.

“No Gray area”, now that is problematic at best and fraught with disaster at the worst. There was a time in this country when it was thought that slavery was the white mans privilege and the black mans burden. There was no gray area there either. We grew up, and came to understand a better more enlightened way. Welcome the 13th Amendment and the beginning of enlightenment. Now are we to start the long slow decent back into a dark age and pick and choose who gets which rights? How much damage do we allow this time before we realize we have made a horrible mistake, how many must suffer before we understand it was a bad idea? This time.

If there is a mandate which specifically states every point of the loss of rights, then prejudice and human error would not play a role. Again we are talking ONLY about the felons who commit these specific acts. I'm not advocating, or implying taking away the rights of my next door neighbor because it aggravates me that he never maintains his yard.

And yet these regulations to remove the rights of certain individuals would be written by men, enforced by men and suffered by men. I submit to you that there is no way to completely remove the inherent fallibility of man. Guarantees are only as good as the men that make them, mandates only as sound as those that mandate. It is our own weaknesses that has brought us to even consider removing someone’s rights, are we to further compound this with action?

I'm not advocating the use of torture. We could make it simple. Much like the breathalyzer rules. Refuse to blow, then guilt is assumed.
Do much the same thing - refuse to answer the questions, then guilt is assumed. All under the observation and advice of lawyers of course.

So the mere act of non-cooperation would equate quilt? This sounds eerily like the Salem Witch Trials. Perhaps more distinctly like the McCarthyism trials and subsequent near death of the Justice System perpetrated by mass paranoia.

The Breathalyzer rules effect and are only applicable to the “privilege” to operate a motor vehicle. Having nothing to do with rights, yet your point is understood. The question remains however, who determines if the breath test is as far as it goes? Your panel of men, who assigns these positions? In whose hands is placed the power to determine guilt or innocence? This is exactly what you’re doing. By granting this power to men, you place them in a position to, as individuals; decide who loses rights and who keeps them. The Constitution was written to specifically deny that to any one individual. This is most apparent in the separation of powers inherent within the Constitution and the limits placed on each branch.

The 5th - The criminal can't say "I take the 5th." Either Yes or no.
The 8th - The criminal would be under constant video surveillance with a feed to a 3rd party "whistle blower" committee. Torture comes into play, the world knows about it in minutes.

You say “Criminal” and yet in your scenario, the person has yet to be convicted as indicated by your necessity to compel his testimony. This as much as anything proves my point. As all can see by reading your posts, you are an intelligent and thoughtful person; yet you have convicted the person in your own scenario even prior to his forced or cooperated confession. What would less intelligent, less thoughtful people do to achieve their goals?
What if the subject just does not speak? How to you propose to force him to, or would that also indicate guilt?
As for your video surveillance, that is placing the life, the future of a citizen in the hands of technology. Also, who would determine the 3rd party? What power would they have?

Can you see the pattern developing here? No matter how you attempt to control it, the end result is the power of life and death placed in the hands of humans with few if any checks and balances. The Nazi’s tried that and it failed miserably. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to prevent exactly what you are proposing here. It is fair and equal to all involved; it has stood the test of time and any number of attacks. It remains one of the singularly most important documents ever written.

And it omits no one person.

Are you saying that the BTK killer deserves more rights than my family does?

NO, The same…

The point is not that it is important to the BTK killer, to use your example, it is important to us.

It is indefinably important to us as a society, far more than it is to the criminals.

“Freedom isn’t free.” I am sure you have heard this and recently in reference to the war in Iraq. It is also pertinent here and relevant to the debate. Freedom is not free; it requires constant vigilance and sacrifice on the part of all of us to sustain that freedom. One necessary element of that sacrifice is imparting rights and guarantees to those that have no respect for our values, our rights or our society.

If we ever fail to do so, we run the very real risk of becoming that which we are fighting. It is our responsibility to rise above that station and if we resort to dubious actions in order to enforce our rules and regulations, we are no better than the criminals we are trying to control.

Some of those very things we do without are afforded to these criminals while they are doing "hard time". These criminals should have nothing.

It has been said that a society may be judged by the way in which it treats its criminals. That being said, I too do not advocate that criminals have the luxuries of life afforded to them that are not necessary for their well being. We must however, ensure that their basic needs are provided for. This includes the rights afforded them under the Constitution of the United States.

Semper

It is with the utmost respect for my worthy opponent, and frankly a little bit of sadness that I post my closing statement. This debate is coming to a close much more quickly than I would have liked. Thank you Semperfortis. You have proven yourself to be a class act, and a true asset to ATS. I value your friendship.

Now here we must each define the phrase “Choose to do so” for ourselves.
This is necessary because the psychology of criminal conduct is anything but an exact science. The compulsions, drives and reasons any one commits such crimes are as varied as the individuals. “Choose to do so” is a blanket statement that fails to take into account those individuals that suffer from compulsive disorders and thus can “not” choose to “not” do a thing.

"Choose to do so". Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe that the definition of my statement is pretty clear. You are correct, my statement is a "blanket statement". If someone stalks, and hunts, or has a compulsive disorder is completely irrelevant to me. They are a danger to society, who committed an agregious act. When a grieving family is burying a loved one who was murdered, or when a 6 year old is emotionally scarred for life because he/she was raped by an adult, does it matter if the culprit was suffering from a compulsive disorder? In my book - NO. Simply NO.

By removing their rights we are advocating, consciously or not, treating these people as animals while we still do not fully understand them. What does that make us my friend?

Sir, if they murder someone, rape someone, or commit a sexual act on an innocent child - they are animals, and should be treated as such. What does that make us? I for one would be proud to be called the ONE who removed someone like this from society.

Being a Felon already carries with it certain loses as it were. One loses the ability to vote in most states. Certain employment opportunities are denied as well as specific civic positions after release. Prior to that of course they lose the singular right of freedom and certain amounts of privacy.

Personally, I shed no tear for these individuals who've lost these priveliges. I apologize, actually no I don't, but as the song says don't do the crime if you can't do the time. They've lost these priveliges due to their own actions.

“No Gray area”, now that is problematic at best and fraught with disaster at the worst. There was a time in this country when it was thought that slavery was the white mans privilege and the black mans burden. There was no gray area there either. We grew up, and came to understand a better more enlightened way. Welcome the 13th Amendment and the beginning of enlightenment. Now are we to start the long slow decent back into a dark age and pick and choose who gets which rights?

Slavery? How is there any analogy whatsoever to this debate? Slavery was so wrong that I can't even put words to it. Back to the point.
"Slow decent back into the dark age and pick and choose who gets which rights"? As we've both already stated EVERY citizen of the US is given the same rights. Same for you. Same for me. Same for the guy who cut me off in traffic. We all have the same rights. We're not throwing darts at names on a wall to decide. Commit one of these heinous acts, and it's OVER for you. Pretty cut and dried.

And yet these regulations to remove the rights of certain individuals would be written by men, enforced by men and suffered by men. I submit to you that there is no way to completely remove the inherent fallibility of man. Guarantees are only as good as the men that make them, mandates only as sound as those that mandate. It is our own weaknesses that has brought us to even consider removing someone’s rights, are we to further compound this with action?

You're right. They would be written and enforced by men. Name one law that currently is in the books- ONE, that wasn't written by man, or enforced by man. I don't consider it a weakness to remove the rights of the types of criminals we're speaking of. Frankly in todays over the top PC society, I consider it a strength. The system is broken. It just is, and it needs to be fixed.

So the mere act of non-cooperation would equate quilt? This sounds eerily like the Salem Witch Trials. Perhaps more distinctly like the McCarthyism trials and subsequent near death of the Justice System perpetrated by mass paranoia.

Yes, as callous as it may sound, that is what I'm saying. Non cooperation would equate to guilt. If your innocent why would you not cooperate? If you have no skeletons, then there is no need to lie.
One thing that needs to be clarified. While I clearly advocate the loss of rights to these criminals, I am not saying to take away the trial by jury system. I've stated earlier that the system needs to be fixed, but it does need to remain.

You say “Criminal” and yet in your scenario, the person has yet to be convicted as indicated by your necessity to compel his testimony. This as much as anything proves my point. As all can see by reading your posts, you are an intelligent and thoughtful person; yet you have convicted the person in your own scenario even prior to his forced or cooperated confession. What would less intelligent, less thoughtful people do to achieve their goals?
What if the subject just does not speak? How to you propose to force him to, or would that also indicate guilt?

I will state once again, that a trial by jury system still needs to be in place. Semperfortis, I have to assume that you as much as anyone alive knows the flaws in the system. Does it need to be fixed. Yes. But that doesn't mean in any way whatsoever that it should be abandoned.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to prevent exactly what you are proposing here. It is fair and equal to all involved; it has stood the test of time and any number of attacks. It remains one of the singularly most important documents ever written.

Sir, I could not agree with you more when you state that it is one of the singularly most important documents ever written. You and I are not so very different. We both served proudly, knowing we might die defending this precious document. However there is a reason why we have amendments.

It has been said that a society may be judged by the way in which it treats its criminals. That being said, I too do not advocate that criminals have the luxuries of life afforded to them that are not necessary for their well being. We must however, ensure that their basic needs are provided for. This includes the rights afforded them under the Constitution of the United States.

"Basic needs" being the key words here. I've made it clear how basic I believe it should be. Society may be judged by the way it treats it's criminals. Personally if I had to choose between someone thinking that I'm a nice guy versus removing someone who is a menace to society, I would choose the latter every time.

In conclusion, I've laid out my arguments as to why I believe the rights of Murderers, Rapists, and Pedophiles should be removed. I've responded to every challenge that my wise opponent laid out.

The rights of the criminals who stalk you, and me, and our children should be taken away. Every day we read of another innocent victim being violated. Innocent people who go to work, do everything possible to provide for their loved ones get murdered, or raped by someone. A child who has a bandaid on his/her knee because he/she still doesn't have the knack for riding a bike yet gets sexually assaulted by someone.
These criminals deserve nothing.

Semperfortis, the floor is yours. Thank you Sir.

Chissler, Majic and especially Lombozo; Thank You all for the opportunity to debate this subject and allowing me to express my opinions…

Closing:

In this debate we have discussed rights, responsibilities and controlling factors in society. This debate goes much deeper than that. It hits to the very heart of what it is to be free, to be American.

My opponent advocates a system of revenge, forcible interrogation, compulsory testimony and the arbitrary removal of the rights guaranteed under our constitution. This all controlled and instituted by some group or groups of men for whom accountability is somewhat suspect.

My stance on the debate was foreseen over 230 years ago. My opinions expressed here have been defended and have withstood the test of time for all of those years, through times far more tumultuous than those we live in now.

All those years ago, men came together, with a desire to live within a system that was fair to all. Where the rights of all men were incorruptible and fallible men lived within as infallible a system as was humanly possible. Not perfect by any means, but perhaps the best the world has seen to date.

My opponent calls the perpetrators of such crimes dangerous to society. While I agree with this assessment, I must point out a far greater danger to society; the erosion of our rights. We must never allow ourselves to submit to our fears and give up the very thing that makes us free in a futile attempt to obtain security or revenge.

My opponent also decries the taking into account certain mental disabilities in accordance with the accountability for criminal actions. As an advanced society, we are ultimately responsible for the actions of our people as a whole. We are obligated to care for those that can not care for themselves, not simply punish them. Our conscious, our morals and our very existence as a free nation requires this.

Sir, if they murder someone, rape someone, or commit a sexual act on an innocent child - they are animals, and should be treated as such. What does that make us? I for one would be proud to be called the ONE who removed someone like this from society.

No my friend, they are Human Beings. They are deserving of the respect afforded all people even while we punish them for their misdeeds. It is not their souls that require this, it is our very own.

My analogy to slavery was simply to point out that while the idea of removing rights from select individuals may seem a good idea to some now, so did slavery, as well as drawing and quartering. All were good ideas at one point in history. We grew up, past these crude means of punishment and became the nation of individual rights we are today. We must never allow ourselves to slide back into anarchy, even at the expense of our security.

My Opponent would institute a system of cooperation or the assumption of guilt and yet still supports the trial by jury. This is something of an oxymoron when looked at in depth. What need is there for a trial if we are going to assume guilt through non-cooperation? If the person fails to comply, they are guilty. We can then completely forgo the jury system, even the judicial system all together and head right to the death penalty.
The road to Chaos.


The Bill of Rights to the Constitution Bill of Rights was adopted to prevent just such a proposal as my opponent advocates. Fearing too much power within and afforded to the Federal Government, the states demanded certain rights to protect their citizens from the potential abuses of a Federal Government and the inherent power that Government yields. They demanded these Rights be present in the final document and they were and remain correct.
This has served us well for over 200 years and made us the envy of the modern world. To propose removing those rights for any reason is unconditionally unacceptable.

This is not just about how someone perceives us, not withstanding what my opponent alluded to. This is all about how we perceive ourselves. When talking about honor and self-respect, my Grandfather once told me, “It is your face you have to look at when shaving son.” I have lived by this my entire life and find it particularly pertinent here. It is not so much how we are understood, look at or accepted by others, it is the very foundation of our principles that are in question here.

If we ever arrive at a point where we can “pick and choose” the rights we are comfortable with, then this nation ceases to exist. When man feels his need for revenge is greater than his desire for equality, we have lost all the Founding Fathers fought for. When we ever reach a point where the rights of any one citizen are subjugated for protection or security, we have lost the battle my friends.

This debate though simple in concept, is complex in foundation. It strikes right to the very heart of all we are as a nation.

To consider removing rights from anyone, for the acts perpetrated by that individual, would have far reaching and destructive affects on this Nation and its future.

Thank you Lombozo….

Great Debate

Semper

semperfortis, lombozo.. great job! I've browsed most of this debate as it progressed but I fully plan to saddle up and really get into this debate shortly. You guys have made this forum look great in the past, and I am quite certain that this will be no exception.

I'll alert our judge(s) and have them "take a peak".

For the time being, this thread will be closed, and remain closed until I announce the results.

Stay Tuned...

Another great debate! I've thoroughly read this debate twice and I was stumped both times. I flip flopped who I thought came out on top a few times, and really had to think about it when I finished each time. But my thoughts are irrelevant, because our judges are in with their verdict.

This one took them some time to actually come to a decision, as a lot of deliberation was required. It really was not an easy decision to come to. That I can attest to.

So let's get down to it.



Message From The Judges

Both members were spot on at times, but both failed to really put the last nail in the coffin when they had the opportunity. All of the judges agreed that both members had an opportunity to "seal the deal" but neither took advantage of the slip by their opponent. The member lombozo needs to rethink his approach to rebuttals and closing statements. Too much of this member's post was dedicated to quoting his opponents post. This was a major roadblock for this member, as his opponent seemed to have much more to say. We would recommend that this member try to cut back on the amount of quoted text from his opponent on the next debate, so he can focus more on his own race.

The member semperfortis, like his opponent, is a strong debater. At times he focused on the semantics of the debate a little too much, and things were becoming slightly redundant. He did focus on his own race more than his opponent, but times he allowed himself to go off-topic, which worked to the benefit of his opponent.

What we all agreed upon was that both of these members were very passionate and intellectually sound on the subject. Even though some of us disagreed with what they were saying, we can not overlook the strength in their approach. It needs to be said that this is not about who is "right" and who is "wrong". While we may disagree what some debaters have to say, we are looking for who presents the better argument.

So Who Presented The Better Argument?

We tossed this around quite a bit. We feel that both members presented some great points, and we feel that both members failed to acknowledge certain points raised by their opponent. We feel that lombozo held the upper hand for most of the debate, as much of what he had to say was flying under the radar and was not being refuted by semperfortis. However, semperfortis' closing statement was probably the strongest post in the whole debate, and really refuted much of what lombozo had to say.

Before we actually announce the winner, we wish to congratulate both members on this hard fought debate. Even though we have awarded one of you as the winner, both of you deserve an ovation for your efforts. lombozo you make an admirable stance and worked your ass off to get your point across. We respect that, and we hope to see you back in this ring on a regular basis. semperfortis, the same has to be said for you. You worked hard to get your points across, and it is this passion from you guys that we love to see in the H2H ring.

With that, it is our responsibility to announce the winner.

The winner of this H2H debate, by the hair of his chinny chin chin, semperfortis.

One final congrats to both members, and we all agree that we hope to see you both back in this ring in the immediate future. We would also love to see a rematch at some point.

Great Debate!





Thanks to the judges for the input on this debate. I love the feedback that has been offered here, as this is what is going to benefit the H2H Forum, and the members who compete. I offer a heart felt congrats to our winner semperfortis, and his worthy opponent lombozo.

I read the debate myself, and like I said, I was stumped. The word from the judges only reinforces how close this debate actually was.

And with that, I now open this debate up to all "Fighters" who wish to comment on this round between semperfortis & lombozo.

"Ya'll Come Back Now... Yah Hear?"

Allow me to congratulate Lombozo.

He took a VERY difficult stance, one I feel was much harder to defend than mine, and he presented it professionally and with passion...

Thank you Lombozo for this opportunity to debate...

Chissler:

Thank you for making this take off as it has..... This is a GREAT way to get alternative views out with clarity and substance.

I want to thank the judges for their time as well...

Semper

Semperfortis. Congratulations there my good man!
Hat's off to you.

Chissler, I read your critiques, and point well taken on rebuttals and closings.

I hope to be welcomed into the H2H ring again in the future.

Great job to both of you guys. Good stuff.