| ... |
... |
@@ -1,63
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====Value: Justice- defined by giving each their due==== |
| 2 |
|
-====Criterion: Protection of Citizen’s rights==== |
| 3 |
|
-======== |
| 4 |
|
-====The protection of Citizen’s rights are mandatory to the achievement of Justice because the rights of citizens are that which is due to them. ==== |
| 5 |
|
-==Contention 1: Accountability== |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
- |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-==A Qualified immunity is excused ignorance.== |
| 11 |
|
- |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-Armacost 98 { Barbara, Professor of Law at University of Virginia Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused, http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/faculty/hein/armacost/51vand_l_rev583_1998.pdf, pg 2} |
| 16 |
|
-In this Article, Professor Armacost uses fair notice in criminal law as a paradigm for analyzing the role of not |
| 17 |
|
-...AND... |
| 18 |
|
- attach. In such cases, qualified immunity's notice inquiry-whether the law was clear-acts as a proxy for fault. |
| 19 |
|
- |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
- |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
-====B) Qualified immunity has been used to protect cops in cases where constitutional rights had been clearly violated.==== |
| 24 |
|
-Chemerinsky 2014, Erwin, dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Irvine, “How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops,” New York Times, 26 August. |
| 25 |
|
-The Supreme Court has used this doctrine in recent years to deny damages to an eighth-grade girl who was strip-s |
| 26 |
|
-...AND... |
| 27 |
|
-able in court. How many more deaths and how many more riots will it take before the Supreme Court changes course? |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
- |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
- |
| 32 |
|
-====In summation, the author is saying that crimes are evaluated based upon the wrongfulness of the actions, but public authorities are held to different standards and that qualified immunity is an excuse for their ignorance of the law. Onto our V/C debate: since QI is an ignorant excuse for public authorities, abolition of the ground of excuses for public authorities will result in holding police people more accountable to their actions, and thereby protect citizen’s rights when police people don’t have this venue to evade the punishments. ==== |
| 33 |
|
-==Contention 2: QI and Marginalized Communities== |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
- |
| 36 |
|
- |
| 37 |
|
- |
| 38 |
|
-====A Qualified immunity was won by the police people who brutally shoot Teresa Sheenah.==== |
| 39 |
|
-Liptak 15 { ,Adam, covers the United States Supreme Court and writes "Sidebar," a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law "Supreme Court Sides With Police in a Shooting, and Against a State on Taxes," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/supreme-courts-rules-on-a-police-shooting-state-taxes-and-prisoners-lawsuits.html?_r=1®ister=facebook } |
| 40 |
|
-The court sided with two San Francisco police officers who in 2008 shot Teresa Sheehan, a mentally ill woman, wh |
| 41 |
|
-...AND... |
| 42 |
|
-San Francisco’s shift in its legal position as the case proceeded had made it impossible to address the question. |
| 43 |
|
- |
| 44 |
|
- |
| 45 |
|
- |
| 46 |
|
- |
| 47 |
|
-====B) The court has a long history of discounting the interests of minority populations–qualified immunity just exacerbates racism entrenched in the system.==== |
| 48 |
|
-Reinhardt 15 , Stephen R. Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Lim- itations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 113, 2015. |
| 49 |
|
-The Court has often remarked that “to perform its high function in the best way, ’justice must satisfy the app |
| 50 |
|
-...AND... |
| 51 |
|
-deral statute, rather than the more lenient state statute, were seemingly reserved for black defendants alone.171 |
| 52 |
|
- |
| 53 |
|
- |
| 54 |
|
- |
| 55 |
|
- |
| 56 |
|
-====The first contention shows how police can claim QI, when their actions were clearly wrong and the second is relevant because it shows the court's bias against PoC; if QI excludes rulings of Constitutionality and if the courts have a negative bias towards PoC then that allows for the shaping of laws that shall violate citizen’s rights. By the abolition of this police tactic of evading responsibility, we are able to punish them according their actions and therefore hold government legitimacy, when citizens have their rights upheld. ==== |
| 57 |
|
-==Overview then Voter== |
| 58 |
|
- |
| 59 |
|
- |
| 60 |
|
- |
| 61 |
|
- |
| 62 |
|
-====Our first contention says that QI is an ignorant excuse for public officials and that the ignorant excuse, in many case, been proved to be dangerous. Our second contention says that QI has been used many times against marginalised communities to marginalise them even further. ==== |
| 63 |
|
-====Now onto voter: The CP solves better because all their advantages (Discretion) could be flowed onto our side.The net benefit would be the better protection of marginalized bodies and better upholding of police accountability. Therefore we meet the value of justice better and urge the judge to vote negative.==== |