tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post8000561004199569765..comments2023-11-05T00:59:10.828-07:00Comments on decorabilia: plea bargaining sample case: retribution AffJim Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77698617121279818662007-12-02T10:39:00.000-08:002007-12-02T10:39:00.000-08:00anonymous, good question. There are several ways...<B>anonymous</B>, good question. There are several ways to attack retributivism.<BR/><BR/>One is to argue that, like you say, societal welfare outweighs individual outcomes. <BR/><BR/>Another is to say that some other value--such as rehabilitation, deterrence, restoration, rights of the accused, etc.--outweighs it. (How this would work would depend on your criterion.)<BR/><BR/>A third way is to attack the concept: at some point proportionality breaks down. If our ultimate sentence, say, is the death penalty, then someone who murders 10 people gets the same punishment as someone who murders 1. (This would lead into #2 above.) Or maybe, as some argue, retribution leads to a society based on vengeance.<BR/><BR/>A fourth way is to show that retributivism isn't incompatible with PBET. By helping a police investigation or prosecution, the defendant shows they have learned and appreciate the moral seriousness of their crime, which is the purpose of retribution. Furthermore, they have attempted to redress the rights they have taken from society (and sophisticated retributivism, like Lippke's, takes that tack) by giving something back to society. That'd go right along with your case.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-61750003274284112432007-12-02T01:43:00.000-08:002007-12-02T01:43:00.000-08:00Jim...First off, thanks for all the help you provi...Jim...<BR/><BR/>First off, thanks for all the help you provide all of us<BR/><BR/>My question is how, as a neg, you would attack the whole retributivism and the punishment must equal the crime arguement... i know im going to say something along the lines of how its not not just to value the punishment of the individual over the greater societal welfare but i was wondering if you could help me expand upon it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-52708844178817632662007-11-15T21:14:00.000-08:002007-11-15T21:14:00.000-08:00anonymous, it's a very public condemnation of an a...<B>anonymous</B>, it's a very public condemnation of an activity. The state, via the court, says to the criminal, "What you have done is wrong." It is the communicative purpose of retribution, respecting the criminal's agency and moral standing.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-3234112784137937212007-11-15T16:58:00.000-08:002007-11-15T16:58:00.000-08:00What is moral censure?What is moral censure?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-45754807414467512652007-11-14T20:06:00.000-08:002007-11-14T20:06:00.000-08:00juan tomas, I would certainly hope so. That's why...<B>juan tomas</B>, I would certainly hope so. That's why it's a shell--for idea purposes only. Thanks for stopping by!Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-32278306857688153012007-11-14T19:45:00.000-08:002007-11-14T19:45:00.000-08:00It would also be nice to show a little more of you...It would also be nice to show a little more of your reasoning in your contentions instead of that of lipke<BR/><BR/>just a thought to show a judge that you are more knowledgable with the subjectAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-85404591061698101612007-11-12T15:05:00.000-08:002007-11-12T15:05:00.000-08:00can u give me a site where i can find about propor...can u give me a site where i can find about proportionality and plea bargaining?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-22395246636207973222007-11-12T14:43:00.000-08:002007-11-12T14:43:00.000-08:00"Morality," after most dictionary definitions, wou..."Morality," after most dictionary definitions, would be something like "principles of right conduct." As our society goes, our most widely shared moral rules are expressed in the law, thus linking retributivism and justice.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-76189707330471690812007-11-12T14:33:00.000-08:002007-11-12T14:33:00.000-08:00so retributivism is based on morality.....should i...so retributivism is based on morality.....should i give definiton of morality for my case...its my value, is it necessary? ....<BR/>thankyou...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-1418239106748392882007-11-12T14:27:00.000-08:002007-11-12T14:27:00.000-08:00My immediate thought: well, what's wrong with veng...My immediate thought: well, what's wrong with vengeance?<BR/><BR/>However, if you want to distinguish between retributivism and vengeance, it's simple: retribution is carried out by the state, through due process, because, as Lippke explains above, crime is an offense against morality.<BR/><BR/>Vengeance is individual, and involves no due process. Any attempt to equate the two, you could argue, is sophistry.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-2528850827176050552007-11-12T14:20:00.000-08:002007-11-12T14:20:00.000-08:00hey all.......well i was working on my aff case, a...hey all.......well i was working on my aff case, and i am using the value retributive justice..my opponent might say, retributism is same as vengeance. how can i argue against that....is it good to use retributive justice for my aff?.and the criterion is proportionality.....<BR/>thankyou...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-60438386360233080612007-10-23T08:09:00.000-07:002007-10-23T08:09:00.000-07:00lol, typo, that should say for my Neg(at the botto...lol, typo, that should say for my Neg(at the bottom of my post)<BR/><BR/>Cya allAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-76730084328995425472007-10-23T08:07:00.000-07:002007-10-23T08:07:00.000-07:00Wow, i actually used that case (before i read this...Wow, i actually used that case (before i read this blog), but instead of using the word reribution I used the proportionality, same thing so w/e. I'm also going to the Harvard tounry. Someone brought up the fact of that PB would already be just. Then really we are debating a utopian society, but thats obviously not right. Well w/e. For my aff, im using Constitutional Rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-72159688207858364042007-10-18T17:18:00.000-07:002007-10-18T17:18:00.000-07:00anonymous, You'd first have to demonstrate that re...<B>anonymous</B>, You'd first have to demonstrate that retribution is in fact harmful in implementation. Then you'd have to show why that harm was either unnecessary or undeserved--making it unjust, and not just unfortunate. <BR/><BR/>Also, you have to show why whatever alternate scheme you might proffer avoids a similar fate--in other words, why retribution would be <I>uniquely</I> harmful.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-76698320286266383172007-10-18T15:22:00.000-07:002007-10-18T15:22:00.000-07:00Whether we are justified in pursuing retributive a...Whether we are justified in pursuing retributive aims is the primary question.<BR/><BR/>if the implementation isnt just (or as just as humanly possible)then why determine if im justified in pursuing it? <BR/>like: lets assume that justice is giving everyone a piece of candy (obviously not), but if many gets cavities, that has a negative impact, therefore, can we still deem that as just? seeing that im trying to pursue justice?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-91753199122948466152007-10-13T17:21:00.000-07:002007-10-13T17:21:00.000-07:00It's on ProQuest, if your school has access. (If ...It's on ProQuest, if your school has access. (If it doesn't, a local university or public library probably does.)Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-47978647837391480992007-10-13T15:50:00.000-07:002007-10-13T15:50:00.000-07:00i was wondering where you would find the full-text...i was wondering where you would find the full-text of the Richard Lippke article that you quoted in the contentions, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-6425335844624529252007-10-10T21:22:00.000-07:002007-10-10T21:22:00.000-07:00please help me. can you give me some tips on how t...please help me. can you give me some tips on how to debate, get my recources etc. this is my first year in debate. Im doing an AFF and a Neg. i ust dont get it at all please help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-77225400281824932962007-10-10T20:36:00.000-07:002007-10-10T20:36:00.000-07:00I should also point out that Cahill advocates "Con...I should also point out that Cahill advocates "Consequentialist-Retributivism," which he thinks largely overcomes the practical disadvantages of classical retributivism. If I saw someone stop with the quote cited, as a judge, I'd dock them for cherry-picking.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-49793181032651068442007-10-10T20:15:00.000-07:002007-10-10T20:15:00.000-07:00anonymous,Nice quote--from Cahill, I see. Without ...<B>anonymous</B>,<BR/><BR/>Nice quote--from <A HREF="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=996140" REL="nofollow">Cahill</A>, I see. <BR/><BR/>Without going into detail, I'd respond by declaring a difference between <I>justification</I> and <I>application</I>. Whether retributivist schemes are difficult to implement in the "real world" is a side concern. Whether we are <I>justified</I> in pursuing retributive aims is the primary question.<BR/><BR/>A second problem: what potential theory of justice wouldn't also suffer from similar real-world application problems?Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-17646166422688427792007-10-10T19:30:00.000-07:002007-10-10T19:30:00.000-07:00"Retributivism apparently speaks only to the crimi..."Retributivism apparently speaks only to the criminal law's design, and not to its implementation. Retributive theory seems to say nothing about how to make the tradeoffs and compromises necessary to "do" criminal justice in the real world, whose inevitable resource constraints and other limitations prevent the system from imposing the full deserved punishment on every offender." <BR/>So wouldn't imposing retributiveness hinder the law-implementing process rather than help it? how would that be just?<BR/><BR/>...i might be completely wrong, i haven't finished reading the contentionsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-73903846762359827252007-10-09T17:38:00.000-07:002007-10-09T17:38:00.000-07:00anonymous,Some interesting ideas. I see one probl...<B>anonymous</B>,<BR/><BR/>Some interesting ideas. I see one problem: "In exchange for" (<B>not</B> "RETURN FOR") definitely limits the resolution. However, why/how would it mean that "plea bargaining by itself" is just? The aff doesn't have to defend plea bargaining <I>per se</I>, and can even attack plea bargaining in all forms, as long as the arguments are equally applicable to PBET. If they aren't, then the debater who offers them is simply nontopical.Jim Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09928624189124041120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-15261049572349418262007-10-09T14:26:00.000-07:002007-10-09T14:26:00.000-07:00o im the second guy and if u want to know who i am...o im the second guy and if u want to know who i am im STJ NG<BR/><BR/>im going to these tournies<BR/>MinneApple<BR/>Glenbrooks<BR/>Harvard<BR/>Woodward (Thats right im a 2nd year debater)<BR/><BR/>A bunch of in state tournaments (Alabama)<BR/><BR/>TOC (I wish)<BR/>NATIONALS (I hope)<BR/><BR/>I SPEED DO U SPEED WE ALL SPEEDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-10694818701621939892007-10-09T14:23:00.000-07:002007-10-09T14:23:00.000-07:00OK here goes nothingFirst i am going to start out ...OK here goes nothing<BR/><BR/>First i am going to start out with an arg i have been toying with:<BR/> When the resolution states Plea Bargining in return for a testimony we can assume that plea bargining by itself is just. If it was the intent to be on just plea bargining then there would be no IN RETURN FOR. this means if justice is based on retribution then plea bargining would be a proportional punishment and since IN RETURN FOR does not change the proportionality there is no way to affirm on this ground<BR/><BR/>Now less theory:<BR/> In the USA our laws are based on the constitution. This puts this AFF case in a double bind for one of two reasons:<BR/> 1.If the constitution is not based on retribution then we can have no govermental legitamacy by affirming thus there is no effective agent to uphold Justice in the US<BR/> 2.If the constitution is based on retribution the supreme court has already ruled in favor of Plea Bargining in Bordenkircher v. Hayes and we have to respect the supreme courts decision because if we dont the constitution can not be changed depending on current events and all amendments would be invalidated thus making the US GOVT have no Legitamacy which is a prerequisite to upholding justice in any country where the Justice system is controled by the govt.<BR/><BR/>That is the OVERVIEW more in a bitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6865007.post-64708218312800830752007-10-08T22:46:00.000-07:002007-10-08T22:46:00.000-07:00oh mr anderson you and your smart debate stuff hah...oh mr anderson you and your smart debate stuff haha this was amazing by the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com