Judge: Eric Kazadi (Unaffiliated)
Resolution: Resolved: The United Nation should require countries to uniformly enact substantial criminal justice reform in one or more of the following: forensic science, policing, sentencing.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at June 29, 2020 10:02:09AM EST by Justin Oh
https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html (this source is about the U.N’s purpose
(this source lists some of the toughest drug policies)
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it (this source is about Portugal’s drug policies)
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentencing/sentencing-basics/ (the basic purpose of sentencing)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222318.pdf (statistic costs for forensic analysis)
Posted at June 30, 2020 04:00:24PM EST by Minjae Jung
None available for this speech.
Posted at July 2, 2020 04:10:05AM EST by Justin Oh
https://dualdiagnosis.org/drug-rehab-instead-of-prison-could-save-billions-says-report-2/ (how rehab can save money)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/23/united-nations-gets-mostly-positive-marks-from-people-around-the-world/ (this source is for the survey evidence)
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at July 6, 2020 06:47:37AM EST by Eric Kazadi
|Category||Justin Oh||Minjae Jung|
|Use of evidence:||5.5||5|
|Coherence of arguments:||6||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||5.5||6|
|Comments:||Very strong argumentation and rebuttal, delivered clinically and with clear impacts.
Main critique is that you could have responded to the cost argument by pointing out that the opposition never establishes why criminal justice reform is actually a trade off with the other things they want to prioritise such as healthcare.
|Good, strong case and well made principled claims. I have 2 broad concerns:
1) You don't establish mutual exclusivity between criminal justice reform and pursuing malaria treatments. The implicit analysis is that there are constrained budgets in the developing world, but the logical extension of that is that any other policy which is not healthcare is something which shouldn't be pursued e.g. money spent on building infrastructure is money spent on malaria and famine - so the prioritisation analysis needed to be stronger.
2) Responses aren't as progressive - proposition invokes the UN's ability to act as a paternalistic body when the local government is failing and this gets no direct response.
The decision is for the Proposition: Justin Oh
Reason for Decision:
Two broad clashes exist in the debate:
1) legitimacy of the UN as a body
The prop establishes 2 claims - a) broken justice systems do not allow for protection of individuals such as fair trials and individual states are illegitimate actors as their justice systems are influenced by archaic views which may lead to over sentencing and aren't based on solid research. The oppositions main thrust is that there is an infringement on sovereignty and secondly neo-colonial, imperial domination of western justice values which would antagonise the developing world.
In weighing this, I think the proposition's characterisation of this as a failure of local governance goes unresponded to and gives legitimacy to the UN to act paternalistically and although it is plausible that there might be some backlash, I think the prop was happy to bite the bullet here and secondly the ends they analyse in the second clash justify this - I buy that there is no intrinsic value to sovereignty in and of itself.
The second clash is on outcomes. The proposition posits that you get justice which is focused on not just restorative principles, but also on rehabilitation as well as fairer trials. The opposition contends that you trade-off other things such as healthcare and these reforms are too expensive for developing nations
I think that the proposition is able to show that over sentencing costs the governments more in the long term and given that there was a lack of establishing mutual exclusivity on the opposition, this clash also goes to the proposition and so does the whole debate.
Thank you for an amazingly high-quality debate and all the best for future rounds.