Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[6]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[6]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-05 00:20:54.847
	1	+2016-11-05 00:20:54.0

Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,70 @@
	1	+===Framework===
	2	+====I value justice.
	3	+Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.====
	4	+Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion ~-~- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
	5	+Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
	6	+AND
	7	+oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).
	8	+
	9	+====Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.====
	10	+Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
	11	+The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
	12	+AND
	13	+in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15
	14	+====Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.====
	15	+===Harms===
	16	+====Blue on black violence is structural and legally justified–police routinely violate the Fourth Amendment to use excessive force against black bodies====
	17	+Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
	18	+No single model can fully explain African-American vulnerability to police violence. At
	19	+AND
	20	+"a pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2
	21	+====The law is currently a means by which police brutality becomes justified–qualified immunity lets officers escape accountability
	22	+Two warrants:
	23	+First, the “clearly established” clause and the merits-sequencing precedent set by Pearson v Callahan means courts can avoid the question of whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution if the right isn’t already CLEARLY ESTABLISHED–creates a vicious cycle where the greater the uncertainty about the law, the easier it is to argue that the right was not “clearly established”–leaves black bodies in a state of legal flux====
	24	+Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
	25	+A similar dynamic is at play in the civil process as well. Here,
	26	+AND
	27	+, courts will likely grant qualified immunity in cases involving such arrests.20
	28	+====2- the “clearly established” standard as presently interpreted virtually guarantees qualified immunity so officers are almost never indicted====
	29	+Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
	30	+4 A second problem with the "clearly established" doctrine pertains to how courts
	31	+AND
	32	+a significant doctrinal hurdle to holding police officers accountable for acts of violence.
	33	+====Qualified immunity doesn’t just mean that victims go without compensation–the “clearly established” right clause means courts can continue to avoid clarifying the scope of the law which prevents the law from ever becoming clearly established====
	34	+Alan K. Chen 15, professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, “Qualified Immunity Limiting Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law,” Human Rights Magazine Vol. 41, 2015.
	35	+Critics of qualified immunity point out that the breadth of the doctrine’s protection means that
	36	+AND
	37	+F. App’x 852, 852–53 (4th Cir. 2009).
	38	+
	39	+====Qualified immunity’s focus on technicalities DISGUISES institutional racism and makes civil rights litigation about INDIVIDUAL CASES instead of structural problems and encourages acceptance of the status quo—we have to break down the illusion that our CJS allows for redress====
	40	+Diana Hassel 99, Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity,” Missouri Law Review Vol. 64, 1999.
	41	+The problem with qualified immunity is not so much that the outcomes are sometimes unfair
	42	+AND
	43	+of an open debate concerning which civil rights should be protected and how.
	44	+====Thus the plan: The United States Supreme Court ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers by changing the “clearly established right” clause to asking whether the defendant’s conduct was “clearly unconstitutional”, and also implementing a four-part inquiry for cases in which the defendant’s actions were not obviously unconstitutional.====
	45	+Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law, “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
	46	+In trying to decide whether a constitutional right is "clearly established," courts should
	47	+AND
	48	+case?; 197 (4) How recently was the constitutional right pronounced?
	49	+===Solvency===
	50	+====Asking whether the defendant’s actions were “clearly unconstitutional” as opposed to violating “clearly established rights” avoids legal technicalities that excuse egregious behavior and shifts the focus to common social duty====
	51	+John C. Jeffries 10, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, Jr. “What’s Wrong with Qualified Immunity,” Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, September 2010. RFK
	52	+A second suggestion would be to change the doctrinal formula for qualified immunity. Rather
	53	+AND
	54	+would not be irrelevant in determining whether conduct is "clearly unconstitutional." 84
	55	+====The four-part inquiry establishes a uniform standard for settling constitutional merits–resolves the legal quagmire that unfairly protects the police====
	56	+Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law, “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
	57	+The obvious benefits of the proposed standard are that it would provide uniformity, help
	58	+AND
	59	+and the common-sensical or difficult nature of the legal issues involved."
	60	+====AND—civil lawsuits good because they spur systemic reform through investigations and public outcry–also, even if there’s indemnity that doesn’t answer our offense because victims still get REPARATIONS and RECOMPENSE====
	61	+Mary M. Cheh 96,Professor of Law, George Washington University “Are Lawsuits an Answer to Police Brutality?” in William A. Geller and Hans Toch, “Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force,” Yale University Press, 1996. RFK
	62	+By contrast, the civil law, because of its greater flexibility and scope,
	63	+AND
	64	+but to reform so that the harm is not likely to be repeated.
	65	+
	66	+====We don’t claim legal reform solves everything, just that it’s a good idea–even if institutions are racist oppressed groups have to carve out anti-racist pockets in the Constitution and write themselves into the law as a pragmatic political strategy to break down the incoherence of the dominant ideology====
	67	+Kimberle Williams Crenshaw 88, Acting Professor of Law, UCLA; JD, Harvard Law School, “Race, Reform and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” Harvard Law Review Vol. 101, May 1988. RFK
	68	+Rights have been important. They may have legitimated racial inequality, but they have
	69	+AND
	70	+meaningful change depends on skillful use of the liberating potential of dominant ideology.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-05 00:20:56.578

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Victor Rivas Umana

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Scarsdale AC

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Greenhill Krishnan Aff

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Apple Valley