Conditional Pardon for Heinous Crimes

Today, we are debating the motion

THBT in times of war, the state should offer convicts imprisoned for heinous crimes the option to fight for the army in exchange of conditional pardon.

Honorable judge, the opposition, will seek to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this motion should not stand. I will begin by setting the definition of the case, and then going on to explain our caseline. I will posit the opposition's arguments, as well as extend them. Normally, the role of the first speaker of the opposition is to find the most important points made by the proposition, but unfortunately, seeing as there are none, I will take the rest of the rubbish and demolish that. My partner, in his next speech, will further extend our arguments, and introduce several new ones.

The opposition would like to first define the terms heinous crime and conditional pardon. Heinous is defined as grossly wicked or reprehensible; abominable. We further extend the definition of a heinous crime to include murder, assault, kidnaping, arson, burglary, robbery, rape or other sexual offense. A "Heinous criminal" means a person who has been convicted of a heinous crime. These are legal definitions supported by caselaw.lp, and used in Section 2a of the Eclipse v. Gulotta case involving the US 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Furthermore, we define a pardon granted as release from guilt or remission of punishment. From the Encyclopedia Britannica, quote, In criminal law the power of pardon is generally exercised by the chief executive officer of the state, namely the president or dictator of a state. A pardon is conditional when its effectiveness depends on fulfillment of a condition by the offender, usually a lesser punishment, as in the commutation of the death sentence. Endquote.

The opposition firmly believes that this motion should not stand for these following reasons. First of all, as by definition from the Encyclopedia Britannica, the pardon is usually granted to criminals convicted of heinous crimes, and sentenced to either death, or life in prison. The institution of a prison, is meant to be not only a facility to punish criminals, but also to rehabilitate criminals, so that they can return to society as a functional human being who can help better the society, instead of causing harm to it. Many prisoners do indeed, deserve the chance to return to society, after successful rehabilitation.

However, this does not apply to criminals convicted of heinous crimes, and sentenced to several life sentences, or in some countries, death. What such a sentence essentially embodies, is not rehabilitation, but separation from society. The judge, jury, and prosecutor of such a person have obviously decided that he or she is unfit to rejoin society, that no amount of rehabilitation can change his or her course of action or thought, or that the heinous crime he or she has committed is beyond the capacity for forgiveness.

Well, the proposition may argue that every person should be given a second chance. Well, tough luck. Please tell that to the victims of these criminals. Tell the mother of the seven year old girl who was sexually assaulted, killed, and thrown in a ditch. Where is her second chance for survival? Where did her inalienable right to life go?

Honorable judge, the proposition may further argue that by allowing these criminals to fight for the army in a time of war, they are proving themselves to be changed people. They are proving to the world that they are good people. John Doe, was charged with 5 counts of manslaughter, 3 counts of aggravated assault, and 2 counts of battery with a weapon. This same John Doe, is sent into battle, because for some reason this ridiculous motion was passed, and granted a conditional pardon for his extreme acts of heroism and duty to his country. Let's take a look at what his acts of heroism were. During a vital battle, he and his company of ex-convicts were pinned down by a machine-gun nest. Mr. Doe rushed the machine-gun nest, putting his life in peril. Next, he shot a bullet into the head of a 15 year old enemy soldier, repeatedly stabbed another soldier with his knife, and then strangled to death the last soldier. What this earned him was a medal of valor and a conditional pardon. Please ask yourselves, in what way were his actions here different from what he did to first earn the 5 counts of manslaughter, 3 counts of aggravated assault, and 2 counts of battery with a weapon? The only thing a conditional pardon proves, is not that Mr. Doe is a changed man, but that he can kill very well, and in different contexts too. Not only is this this hypocritical of a system of law, it is also arbitrary, in that a person is punished for killing, and then is rewarded for killing? What kind of message does this send to our citizens? To the young people and children?

Moving on to our next point. The motion states that a conditional pardon should be given to criminals convicted of a heinous crime if they decide to fight for the army. Fighting for the army, can be seen in two ways. The first way, is to fight for a nation against some outside threat. A equally plausible case, is fighting with the army against an already established government, such as in the case of a military coupe, or junta. In many cases, the military leader will exploit the support of prisoners by promising them freedom if they fight for him, and support his cause. In such a time of civil war, this could only add fuel to chaos. After the fire has died out, we will witness a ruined nation, with a democratic government deposed, and a dictatorship instilled due in part to support from heinous criminals. Worse still, in return for the favor, many prisoners convicted of unspeakable crimes may be appointed to government positions, as they feel wronged by the previous government, and are the easiest to manipulate and control. This would be the disastrous effects of such a motion passing.