Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[12]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[12]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-11 21:30:41.23
	1	+2016-12-11 21:30:41.0

Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,59 @@
	1	+Hollow Hope DA
	2	+
	3	+A) Uniqueness: The conservative nature of the current court is mobilizing liberal counter-movements in the political sphere to create equality now:
	4	+Lee A. Daniels, 13 (staff writer, “The Supreme Court’s True Colors Ignore “Fairness,” http://baystatebanner.com/news/2013/jul/12/supreme-courts-true-colors-ignore-fairness/, Accessed 7/29/2013, rwg)
	5	+The Supreme Court’s conservative faction recently revealed more clearly than ever before its true colors. It showed that in the political war over America’s future it supports those who want to return to the exclusionary policies and practices of the past.¶ It comes as no surprise that this is the guiding principle of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. Their contempt for using the law to right injustice and expand the franchise of democracy has never before been so nakedly displayed.¶ The conservative justices’ posture was apparent both in the decisions narrowing affirmative action and in the evisceration of the key “pre-clearance” provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Their callous conservatism was also at the heart of the Court’s decision limiting workers’ protections against harassment in the workplace.¶ That latter decision, Vance v. Ball State University , received far less media attention than the other cases.¶ The conservatives’ recent opinions have as little to do with establishing “fairness” as the Court’s infamous Citizens United decision of 2010 had to do with “free speech” for multibillion-dollar corporations. On the contrary, Citizens United was merely the smokescreen for freeing the conservative elite to spend billions of dollars to defeat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.¶ Similarly, an unctuous pretense saturates the conservatives’ positions in the Vance, Voting Rights, and affirmative action cases. Those decisions have nothing to do with racial fairness. Instead, like the notorious 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, they hide their intent to shore up white privilege behind sham notions of “color-blindness.”¶ It’s worth remembering that in the Plessy era, a rhetorical allegiance to color-blindness was central to racists’ assertion that the doctrine of “separate but equal” was a fair ordering of,American society. Such a notion – effectively the law of the land for the next six decades – was not only profoundly undemocratic but also, operationally speaking, nonsensical.¶ Across the land, Republican legislators and operatives quickly jumped to take advantage of the conservative factions’ blows against democracy by drafting more restrictive voter-identification laws and by further undermining affirmative action via state laws and referenda.¶ However, key political and social developments of these first years of the twenty-first century indicate that the conservative aggressiveness is motivating liberal response.¶ The conservative faction’s gift to Republicans in the Bush v. Gore election was supposed to break black Americans’ political spirit and influence. In fact, the black vote became even more important as more blacks streamed to the polls, defeating the Republican Party’s neo-Jim Crow voter-suppression efforts in state after state.¶ A decade ago, many forecast that the sudden emergence of the issue of gay marriage would sharply undermine the gay rights movement and produce a steep decline in the fortunes of the progressive coalition. But just the opposite has occurred.¶ A decade ago, conservatives were boasting that Latino Americans were on the verge of flocking to the GOP “Big Tent” – before Latinos realized they couldn’t – and still can’t – turn off the neon-lit “whites-only” sign blocking the tent’s entrance.¶ And recently, when it seemed the forces of reaction in the Texas state legislature were going to steamroller an extreme anti-abortion measure to passage, Democratic State Senator Wendy Davis’ startling filibuster gave the progressive coalition a new heroine – and re-affirmed this political era’s over-arching lesson.¶ That is that conservative actions provoke victorious progressive reactions. That means that in terms of the future of America, blue is a “truer” color than red.
	6	+Litigation deflects attention from grassroots activism that better solves the case~-~-—this turns their case and then some:
	7	+Van Schaack, 2004 Assistant Prof. of Law @ Santa Clara University School of Law, Vanderbilt Law Review, November, 2004, (Beth, 57 Vand. L. Rev. 2305; Lexis, rwg)
	8	+Although litigation can provoke and promote other processes of social change, it can also inhibit the development of, deflect attention *2344 and resources away from, or even undermine other strategies for social change that may be more efficacious or durable. These alternative strategies include reparations strategies through the political process; n199 direct action; transnational advocacy in countries where abuses are prevalent; n200 grassroots educational campaigns; traditional human rights advocacy based upon fact-gathering and shaming; the development of monitoring bodies and international regulatory standards, such as environmental or labor codes of conduct for extraterritorial activities; n201 and the creation and promotion of international institutions. n202 The technical, rarified and inaccessible nature of litigation may do little to contribute to the growth of grassroots social movements in certain contexts and communities, especially where individuals are not accustomed to invoking judicial processes to bring about social change. n203 Likewise, lawyers may actually displace natural leaders within community groups, leading to the disempowerment, and even demise, of the group. n204 In addition, litigation (and its attendant legalisms such as standing rules, statutes of limitation, or justiciability doctrines) may diffuse political or moral claims rather than empower potential political constituencies. Indeed, litigation in the United States may ultimately contravene or undermine the strategies of local activists where it is not part of a campaign at the grassroots level in the targeted country.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+Overview
	12	+The Court’s conservative lean now is encouraging liberal grassroots movements that will solve the impacts of the Aff in the SQUO, court rulings And litigation will signal that those activists no longer need to fight against those injustices – which turns the harms of the case. That’s Daniels and Van Shaak.
	13	+
	14	+Social Change through Courts are Counter Productive and creates ruse of solvency - turns case
	15	+Schlanger ’15 (Margo Schlanger is a leading authority on civil rights issues and civil and criminal detention, “STEALTH ADVOCACY CAN (SOMETIMES) CHANGE THE WORLD” 2015, Michigan Law Review, http://michiganlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/113MichLRev897_Schlanger.pdf Accessed: 7/28/15, Chase Elsner, Utnif Cp Gripe)
	16	+Scholarship and popular writing about lawsuits seeking broad social change have been nearly as contentious as the litigation itself. In a normative mode, commentators on the right have long attacked change litigation as imperialist and ill informed,1 besides producing bad outcomes.2 Attacks from the left have likewise had both prescriptive and positive strands, arguing that civil rights litigation is “subordinating, legitimating, and alienating.”3 As one author recently summarized in this Law Review, these observers claim “that rights litigation is a waste of time, both because it is not actually successful in achieving social change and because it detracts attention and resources from more meaningful and sustainable forms of work such as mobilization, political lobbying, and community organizing.”4 Several particularly influential studies eschew the clear ideological position of the works just referenced; they offer what they claim is a purer empirical grounding for the conversation. These studies highlight backlash, purporting to demonstrate that many landmark decisions—among them, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, the Hawaii Supreme Court’s Baehr v. Lewin, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge v. Department of Public Health—have turned out to be not merely inefficacious but counterproductive, harming the very causes they aimed to assist because of the counter-movements they provoked.5 But rights lawsuits have their defenders as well, among both advocates and scholars.6 Many of these defenders agree with lawsuit critics that “activists and analysts” err, badly, if they assume “that litigation can evoke a declaration of rights from courts; that it can, further, be used to assure the realization of these rights; and, finally, that realization is tantamount to meaningful change.”7 To use Professor Scheingold’s phrase, these assumptions are tantamount to a “myth of rights”8—and, like so many myths, this one does not reflect reality. A much more fruitful frame, Scheingold writes in his classic treatment, focuses on “the politics of rights,”9 in which a right recognized by a court is “best treated as a resource of uncertain worth” whose “value . . . will . . . depend in all likelihood on the circumstances and on the manner in which it is employed.”10 Accordingly, rights lawsuits—and the “cause lawyers” who bring them—can improve the welfare of their intended beneficiaries, by using litigation as a piece of a more comprehensive political strategy. Continuing to quote Scheingold (but it could be any of a small library of consonant analyses), litigation and the rights it aims to vindicate are productive only if “useful for redistributing power and influence in the political arena.”11 This can occur if litigation is used for “political mobilization and . . . in this way affects the balance of forces.”12 Introducing data from her interviews with dozens of leading public interest lawyers, Professor Rhode explains: Part of the reason public interest groups have relied heavily on lawsuits is because they can sometimes mobilize such financial and popular support and because other options are less available. . . . As research on social movements makes clear, lawsuits can help frame problems as injustices, identify perpetrators and responses, and reinforce a sense of collective identity, all of which build a political base for reform.13 Rhode further summarizes: “In describing their most effective strategies, public interest leaders most often mentioned, in addition to impact litigation, coalition building and communication.”14 And indeed, studies of the varied practices of advocates for whom litigation is an important tool find that litigation remains attractive to those advocates in large part because lawsuits provide a public focal point for organizing, possessing a “unique ability . . . to attract resources and publicity.”15 In Below the Radar: How Silence Can Save Civil Rights, Alison L. Gash16 adds a key insight into the mix—and in the process demonstrates that litigation theory needs substantially more sophistication to catch up with smart lawyers. Sometimes, she argues, civil rights advocates and clients succeed not by using litigation to organize or mobilize movements, but by stealth—by keeping their cases quiet, “below the radar” of public notice and therefore of opposition. Gash develops two case studies to undergird the theoretical point. The first deals with parenting-equality advocacy on behalf of gays and lesbians, the second with group homes for people with disabilities or recovering from addictions. Each is interesting on its own, and each is well told. Gash doesn’t just summarize existing evidence; she interviewed dozens of advocates, and these form the core of her account. In addition, Gash conducted several very illuminating media-analysis studies. Part I of this Review addresses the parenting-equality case study. I summarize Gash’s account and add to it the cautionary tale of the 2002 failure of stealth parenting-equality advocacy in Michigan. Part II addresses, more briefly, Gash’s group-home study. In Part III, I put Gash’s theoretical contribution into context. Her important and original contribution is her claim that civil rights litigation can succeed quietly, not just loudly. In evaluating this claim, I suggest that she might usefully have addressed the issue of whether stealth advocacy is really a subset of a broader category of efforts to first alter social facts on the ground, and then play defense to preserve that alteration.
	17	+
	18	+AND EVEN IF YOU DON’T THINK THE COUNTERPLAN SOLVES – You can vote negative on presumption because the Disad means the aff can’t solve.
	19	+
	20	+Court Clog DA
	21	+
	22	+Qualified immunity is a large part of case selection-deters lawyers from taking certain cases.
	23	+Reinert, Alexander. “Does Qualified Immunity Matter?.” University of St. Thomas Law Journal
	24	+Vol 8 Issue 3. 2011. Web. October 06, 2016.
	25	+http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261andcontext=ustlj.
	26	+The data are limited and anecdotal in nature, but assuming these results are representative of the available pool of lawyers who represent potential Bivens plaintiffs, they suggest a number of conclusions. First, qualified immunity plays a large role in case selection. Most attorneys seem to select cases to avoid any possible qualified immunity issues arising in the litigation. If the given wisdom that plaintiffs’ lawyers are risk averse is true,105 the limited universe of attorneys who litigate Bivens-type claims may choose cases in which qualified immunity plays a limited role in case resolution. The result may be that the vast majority of Bivens cases never test the limits of existing law, because the attorneys who file them select cases that are within the “clearly established” zone that will defeat a qualified immunity defense. Second, qualified immunity may have this impact not simply because of its substantive content, but also due to the procedural obstacles that ac company invocation of the qualified immunity defense. Dealing with client expectations while a case is on interlocutory appeal and not progressing through discovery may be a deterrent to bringing particular lawsuits—even when the plaintiff’s attorney thinks that the qualified immunity defense will ultimately be rejected.
	27	+
	28	+Immunity is a necessary part of the functioning legal system it provides protection from out of bounds litigants.
	29	+Anenson, T Leigh. “Absolute Immunity From Civil Liability: Lessons For Litigation Lawyers.”
	30	+Pepperdine Law Review Vol 31 Issue 4 Date: 5/15/2004. May 15, 2004. Web. October
	31	+06, 2016. http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr.
	32	+The policy underlying the well-settled principle of absolute immunity was emphasized by the Supreme Court of Ohio as follows: The most basic goal of our judicial system is to afford litigants the opportunity to freely and fully discuss all the various aspects of a case in order to assist the court in determining the truth, so that the decision it renders is both fair and just. While the imposition of an absolute privilege in judicial proceedings may prevent redress of particular scurrilous actions that tend to harm the reputation of the person defamed, a contrary rule, in our view, would unduly stifle attorneys from zealously advancing the interests of their clients in possible violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and would clog court dockets with a multitude of lawsuits based on actions taken in other judicial proceedings.26 The court further explained: Although the result may be harsh in some instances and a party to a lawsuit may possibly be harmed without legal recourse, … sufficient protection from gross abuse of the privilege is provided by the fact that an objective judge conducts the judicial proceedings and that the judge may hold an attorney in contempt if his conduct exceeds the bound of legal propriety.27 As the foregoing decision emphasizes, courts have determined that the interest in preserving the integrity of the advocacy system outweighs any monetary interest of a party injured by the attorney of his or her adversary.28 In fact, the Supreme Court of California declared the litigation privilege to be “the backbone to an effective and smoothly operating judicial system.”'2 9 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania also weighed the balance as follows: “Wrong may at times be done to a defamed party, but it is damnum absque injuria. The inconvenience of the individual must yield to a rule for the good of the general public. 3° Furthermore, because the privilege is designed to protect the adversary system itself by barring claims that would disrupt the litigation process or deter persons engaged in that process from performing their respective functions, all participants are granted its protection. *Ellipsis from source
	33	+Examples show how prohibiting certain cases prevents a clog of the court’s docket.
	34	+Blum, Karen. “Overview of Section 1983 Litigation.” Suffolk University Law School. February 01, 2013. Web. October 06, 2016. https://www.google.com/url?sa=tandrct=jandq=andesrc=sandsource=webandcd=8andcad=rjaandua ct=8andved=0ahUKEwjlkvvw0MXPAhUW0IMKHSPgCHMQFghPMAcandurl=http3A 2F2Fwww.njd.uscourts.gov2Fsites2Fnjd2Ffiles2FOverviewSection1983Litigat ion.pdfandusg=AFQjCNGomk89NxDwegyKnMbhfhIwUgh3eQandsig2=mxCg68Ub3fsknO p56VoIbg.
	35	+Telfair v. Tandy, No. 08-731 (WJM), 2008 WL 4661697, at *7, *8 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2008) (“Based on the Supreme Court’s language in Wallace, it would appear that Wallace effectively supersedes the Third Circuit’s reasoning in Gibson, …and that Heck is inapplicable here … and that Smith v. Holtz likewise is abrogated by Wallace.... Thus, under Wallace, any Fourth Amendment claim must be brought and, in all likelihood, stayed pending resolution of the underlying charges… In the event of a conviction on the underlying charges, the stay may extend for years while post-conviction relief is sought… This is not an ideal situation because of the potential to clog the court’s docket with unresolvable cases. However, in this case, there does not appear to be any clear basis to dismiss the illegal search and seizure claim on the merits. Therefore, this Court is constrained at this time to also allow this claim to proceed, but stay the action until plaintiff’s criminal proceedings are concluded.”)
	36	+Court clog turns case- Overburdened courts hamper effective representation~-~-longer jail times, conviction of innocents, and racial biases means worse injustice.
	37	+Brunt 15
	38	+Alexa Van Brunt, "Poor people rely on public defenders who are too overworked to defend them" Guardian,http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked, June 17, 2015.
	39	+Money can buy you a great defense team, but what if you can’t afford one? More than 80 of those charged with felonies are indigent. As a result, they are unable to hire an attorney and instead rely on representation by a public defender.  Public defenders are, as a general matter, the hardest working sect of the legal bar. But our nation’s public defender systems have long been plagued by underfunding and excessive caseloads. In Florida in 2009, the annual felony caseload per attorney was over 500 felonies and 2,225 misdemeanors. According to the US Department of Justice, in 2007, about 73 of county public defender offices exceeded the maximum recommended limit of cases (150 felonies or 400 misdemeanors). Too often, those who are poor receive lower quality defense than those who have the means to pay. The on-going decimation of public defense prevents defense attorneys from conducting “core functions,” including factual investigation into the underlying charges. In a lawsuit brought in Washington State, it emerged that publicly appointed defense attorneys were working less than an hour per case, with caseloads of 1,000 misdemeanors per year. This state of affairs also leads to exorbitant trial delays. Consequently, roughly 500,000 pre-trial detainees sit in jail year after year before being adjudged guilty of any crime. This makes a mockery of the innocent-until-proven-guilty principle so sacred to our system of justice. Just two years ago, then-Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the country’s indigent defense systems were “in a state of crisis.” Overworked and poorly prepared attorneys were unable to provide effective representation to those they counsel, in violation of their ethical obligations to provide competent and diligent representation and their clients’ rights under the Sixth Amendment.  Holder’s words came on the 50th anniversary of Gideon v Wainwright, in which the Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally required to provide counsel to defendants unable to afford to hire their own. Four years later, the Supreme Court ensured the same right for juveniles. Gideon prompted the widespread creation of public defender systems on which so many rely. Yet, the conditions underlying Holder’s condemnation of public defense systems persist. Though funding for indigent defense systems vary by state, such systems are unified in being cash-strapped. Louisiana has had ongoing problems with the funding of its public defender systems since at least 1986 (controversially, Louisiana public defense is supported by the court costs and fines paid by public defenders’ own clients). Ten judicial districts in the state are slated to run out of funds to pay their public defenders as early as halfway through the year
	40	+
	41	+All of these impacts are supercharged by the fact that police don’t pay legal fees, are unaware of complains and potential liability doesn’t alter actions.
	42	+De Stefan 16 Lindsey de Stefan, JD Candidate, Seton Hall University School of Law, “No Man is Above the Law and No Man is Below It: How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct,” Seton Hall Law Student Scholarship, July 26, 2016 (2017 Academic Year)
	43	+The Court specifically fears that financial liability, in the form of paying compensatory damages to victims whose constitutional rights an officer has violated, will be a vehicle of overdeterrence.97 But the widespread practice of indemnification means that individual officers are almost never financially responsible for civil judgments against them, practically eliminating any fiscal motivation for avoiding harmful conduct.98 In fact, in many instances, even the police department that employs the officer suffers no direct financial consequences because police litigation costs and damages awards are often paid from a city or insurer’s general budget.99 The police department is not financially penalized, and thus has no incentive to discipline the officer or attempt to prevent him from repeating the unconstitutional behavior in the future. And because law enforcement officials are often unaware of the allegations set forth in lawsuits filed against them or their employees, officers’ conduct often goes uninvestigated and undisciplined, and allegations of unconstitutional conduct do not affect performance reviews or opportunities for promotion. 100 Finally, although many law enforcement officers claim that the threat of incurring liability deters them from misconduct, studies contrarily indicate that potential liability does not actually alter most officers’ on-the-job actions.101
	44	+
	45	+Crime DA
	46	+
	47	+Litigation is high now- limiting qualified immunity explodes the amount of cases, chilling police officers and increasing crime.
	48	+Rosen 05, Michael, Attorney in San Diego, JD Harvard Law, A Qualified Defense: In Support of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cases, With Some Suggestions for its Improvement, http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1899andcontext=ggulrev
	49	+This effect dovetails with a growing tendency toward “depolicing” that has become prevalent in several of America’s urban cores.60 According to many officers, recent years have seen an increase in lawsuits and informal complaints brought against law enforcement, a correlate tendency in departments to steer officers away from necessarily risky conduct in do-or-die situations, and a concomitant decline in officer morale. 61 In 1981 in the State of California,“2 residents placed 8,686 complaints against peace officers, of which 1,552 or 18 were ultimately sustained.63 In 2000, Californians recorded 23,395 complaints, of which 2,395 or 10 were sustained. 64 This ballooning of claims - in particular unsuccessful ones65 - is as troubling as it is dramatic. The Oakland, California, Citizens Police Review Board (”CPRB“) embodies this deterrent effect.66 This board provides an independent forum in which aggrieved citizens can register their complaints about police conduct. 67 At the same time, Detective Jesse H. Grant, who has had personal experience appearing before the CPRB, notes that complaints, more than 80 of which were not sustained in 2002, impose a serious deterrent effect on police conduct. 68 Officers now more than ever think twice and act conservatively - although not necessarily safely - when engaged in violent altercations with or apprehensions of dangerous suspects. 69 Ironically, the presence of entities like the CPRB undermines the justification for excessive force lawsuits to begin with: by providing an avenue for voicing grievances over police conduct, such boards obviate some of the need for civil actions. Moreover, they reflect the deterrent effect that wide-open public access to disciplinary bodies can breed. Thus, there exist significant reasons for the courts to grant some kind of immunity to law enforcement officials in order to ensure the continued quality of their work. By increasing the threat of litigation, frivolous lawsuits can serve to deter officers' reasonable conduct, thus imperiling public safety and upending the delicate balance society seeks between forcefully fighting crime and respectfully treating all citizens.
	50	+Second, increasing liability decreases police morale and makes them less likely to police actively.
	51	+Leeuwen 16: Sean Van Leeuwen, Post June 23,2016, "Political rushes to judgement hurt public safety," Sean Van Leeuwen is Vice President of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
	52	+Mosby's decision to bury multiple officers under an avalanche of criminal charges was perhaps politically expedient in the wake of rioting that ravaged the city following Gray's funeral. The results of the first three trials should now make it clear to Mosby and everyone else, it was also just plain wrong. Mosby's Legal rhetoric, such as the use of the term, "rough ride," to paints all the officers involved in the case with a broad brush, implying conspiracy and corruption has done long-lasting harm to police nationwide and communities' relationships with their officers. The acquittal of Officer Goodson who faced the most serious criminal charges in Freddie Gray's death, underscores two key elements of the case: the prosecution's politically fueled rush to judgement and the critical need for law enforcement officers to have a collective defense against malicious prosecutions. Law enforcement officers have a solemn duty to protect the public, a duty which ALADS members believe in and exemplify every day. We do not support actions which violate that duty. However, we do support careful, deliberate investigations that are motivated by a search for the truth, not politics. Peace officers are under more intense scrutiny today than ever before. Virtually every action we take is presumed by some to be an over-reaction or brutality. There is a belief that we should be able to handle every encounter without laying hands on a suspect or drawing a weapon. As Heather McDonald documents in her just released book , The War on Cops: How the Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe these continual misguided attacks only cause police to pull back from proactive policing and as a result crime soars. An example of how unhinged from reality these attacks have become is the anti-police rant published by the Washington Post, following Officer Goodson's not guilty verdict. The author, Jon O. Newman, is a sitting Federal Appellate judge, who urged Congress to abolish qualified immunity for law enforcement, and to appoint United States Attorneys to bring civil suits against police officers on behalf of plaintiffs. Clearly, this jurist does not understand or more likely refuses to accept the rationale for qualified immunity which states if a police officer's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known of, there should not be civil liability. In fact, the judge in Officer Goodson's case, who unlike Newman, listened to and gave careful consideration to all the evidence ruled, "Having found that a reasonable person would act similarly to the defendant, the Court does not find that his actions were reckless and, therefore, finds that there is no criminal liability under the theory that the defendant's failure to act recklessly endangered Mr. Gray." If you want to see active policing plummet, tell law enforcement officers they will be civilly liable for conduct which no reasonable person could have foreseen was a violation of any rights! Here's an idea. Let's make Federal Appellate Court judges civilly liable for every decision they have reversed by the Supreme Court. Unlike cops, who have to make real time decisions affecting legal rights, often under life-threatening circumstances, judges have the luxury of time, law clerks and quiet, safe, well-appointed chambers to make sure their legal decisions are correct. Why shouldn't they be accountable for rendering legal opinions the Supreme Court determines are wrong?
	53	+
	54	+DOJ studies prove that chilling the police causes a huge increase in homicides and crime
	55	+Felton 16 Et Al, Ryan, Lois Beckett, Jamiles Lartey, 'Ferguson Effect' is a plausible reason for spike in violent US crime, study says, 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/15/ferguson-effect-homicide-rates-us-crime-study
	56	+A new justice department-funded study concludes that a version of the so-called “Ferguson Effect” is a “plausible” explanation for the spike in violent crime seen in most of the country’s largest cities in 2015, but cautions that more research is still needed. The study, released by the National Institute of Justice on Wednesday, suggests three possible drivers for the more than 16 spike in homicide from 2014 to 2015 in 56 of the nation’s largest cities. But based on the timing of the increase, University of Missouri St Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld concluded, there is “stronger support” for some version of the Ferguson Effect hypothesis than its alternatives. “The other explanations have a difficult time … explaining the timing and magnitude of the increase we saw in 2015 and continue to see in some cities in the current year,” Rosenfeld said.The new research cuts against months of statements from Obama administration officials denying that there is any evidence for a Ferguson Effect, a suggested link between protests over police killings of black Americans and an increase in crime and murder. “While certainly there might be anecdotal evidence there, as all have noted, there’s no data to support it,” attorney general Loretta Lynchsaid in November. In early May, the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said: “There’s not evidence at this point to link that surge in violent crime to the so-called viral video effect, or the Ferguson effect. There’s just no evidence to substantiate that.” He added: “If there’s evidence that materializes to substantiate that claim, then we should figure out something to do about it.” Early findings from Rosenfeld’s study were first reported by the Guardian in early May. Rosenfeld, whose research on homicide trends in St Louis were used to debunk the Ferguson Effect last year, said that his “views have been altered” after doing a broader national analysis. In interviews with the Guardian, Rosenfeld cautioned that the version of the Ferguson Effect he finds plausible is very different from the one that some leading conservatives have described. The “dominant interpretation” of the Ferguson Effect, he wrote, is that criticism of the police after the killings of unarmed black citizens causes the police “to disengage from vigorous enforcement actions”.
	57	+This outweighs
	58	+a. Scope- Police violence is awful, but we have to ask ourselves if we are willing to have tens of thousands of people killed in homicides, and millions more victim to serious crimes in order to save a hundred from police violence. The answer is obviously no.
	59	+b. Root Cause- The reason why the police use excessive force is because they believe that crime is rampant and that their life is in danger.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-11 21:30:43.107

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+12

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Appleton East Moorhead Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOVDEC- All DAs

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOVDEC