How would you argue against this case?!?

E

Ellie Marieee :)

New member
Hi im in high school and im taking speech class this summer..

topic is "should the uilty be allowed pardon?"

my team will be against it because we believe those who did the crime should do the time, pay the conquences for their actions.

what other ways can we argue this?
 
And if the person did the crime but the crime was simply being of the wrong political group.

and if the person did the crime but did it for good reasons, such as a whistle blower that gets prosecuted for exposing corruption.

and if the person did the crime but the law itself was a poorly thought out law or was designed to go after people in consensual acts, laws against sodomy for example.

laws that get repealed or overturned by higher courts.
 
In order to have a functional society people have to be controlled or kept in tune with one another. People cannot violate privacy by violating others First Amendment's freedom of speech. If people know the consequences of their actions are less dramatic they will not be as restricted to do wrong. Punishments must have teeth.

Some people simply do not care for others, and do not have a since of morality to tell them not to harm others, so they must be contained by laws, and those laws must make the crime not worth the time.
 
Without real consequences there is no cause and effect, which is taught about all through out school and life. Also, people need self morals to realize what is right or wrong, and to do what is right or wrong on purpose out of knowing something good will come from it. If you go into a candy store and steal a snickers it's not a big deal in reality, but in fact it should be paid for. If people pay for the snickers they want, then they'll help the world heal each other.
 
Back
Top