From Debatepedia
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 15:07, 29 July 2009
This House believes that minor crimes should be pursued with the same vigour as serious crimes
|
Background and Context of Debate:
Serious crimes get more attention are investigated with greater vigour than minor crimes (=small financial crimes, pickpocketing, crimes without the consequence of serious injury). Is that right, is that fair (given that 60% of all the victims are victims of minor crimes)?
|
Efficiency:
|
Pro
- Organised crime. Drug dealers are a vital link between drug demand and offer. By imprisoning drug dealers we are effectively undermining these organised groups from the bottom.
- First step. Minor crimes can be seen as a first step towards serious crimes. One might start as a pickpocketer and end ur robbing a bank, shooting someone on the run. Pursuing minor crimes is a necessary prevention and deterrence for future criminals.
- Removing the easy opportunity to commit crime. By investigating and impisoning criminals we are sending the message that crime really does not pay.
|
Con
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
Justice:
|
Pro
- Minor crimes affect a wider part of society. Minor crimes trouble our society as they are more common, affect more people, have more victims. If we want our legal system to make sense, we should try to punish as many criminals as possible, thus investigate minor crimes with same same vigour as serious crimes.
|
Con
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
Write Subquestion here...
|
Pro
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
Con
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
See also
External links and resources
|
