APDA Debate Case: Just Be Civil

The United States should remove non-violent crimes from the criminal justice system and move them into civil courts.
Caveats:
• This type of civil case will get its own classification
o We’ll call it “Civil Charges”
• Civil Charges will have the following standards
o Beyond a reasonable doubt evidentiary standard
o Public defenders and prosecutors will be provided as necessary
o Will be subject to criminal constitutional protections
• How does this differ procedurally?
o The state does not necessarily press charges against the accused
 Whoever has damages press charges
• So if state property is damaged, they can bring up a civil charge
• But the state does not bring up charges on behalf of the people
o So if someone damages private property, the person who’s property was damaged must bring the charges up
o The trial itself functions essentially the same (due to Constitutional protections)
 So the major differences are who brings the charges, and the punishments in the aftermath
• Civil cases cannot result in jail time. Mainly monetary damages
o But it can result in restraining orders

1. The Philosophy of Criminal Justice
   a. What is unique about the criminal justice system?
   i. The only result difference is that the criminal system has the ability to remove people from society
2. So the only unique thing about the criminal justice system is prison
   a. The question we must answer, then, is why should non-violent criminals not be in prison?
   i. Because they don’t pose a risk to society at large
3. The justification for people being in prison is that they are dangerous and must be removed from society
4. But at the point where non-violent criminals have not done anything dangerous to prove this, there is no reason for them to be removed from society
5. In fact, we’re going to say that it is unconstitutional to put non-violent criminals in prison
   a. In prison, you don’t have access to many of your constitutionally protected liberties such as your right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to vote
   b. In order to violate people’s constitutional liberties, the Supreme Court has decided highest level of scrutiny must be met. Strict scrutiny.
   c. For strict scrutiny to be met, the restriction on liberties must be directly related to a compelling government interest, and it must be done in the least restrictive way possible. Prison for non-violent criminals does not meet this standard
   i. Let’s start with the compelling government interest. It simply doesn’t exist. As we argued earlier the compelling interest would be keeping dangerous people off the streets, and non-violent criminals are not dangerous.
   ii. But even if you think they are, this is far from the least restrictive way to deal with the problem. You can use restraining orders to prevent even the more egregious of non-violent crimes such as severe harassment. Prison is the most restrictive means, it’s a blanket ban and that simply isn’t appropriate
   iii. FOR OPP TO WIN THIS ROUND THEY NEED TO PROVE THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF STRICT SCRUTINY. IF THEY CAN’T, YOU ARE GIVING THE BALLOT TO GOV
6. More humane treatment of the accused throughout the entire process
   a. At arrest
   i. Well, there are no arrests
7. There are two major benefits of this
   a. There is less opportunity for police brutality because there are less people being arrested
   b. People who don’t need to be detained, don’t get detained
   b. At indictment
   i. You don’t even need to show up. If you are being sued you are notified by the court
8. This is good because poorer individuals who can’t afford to miss work to go to indictment hearings don’t have to. Meaning they have more money to provide for themselves and their families
   c. Before the trial
   i. There are no plea bargains. The equivalent in civil trials are settlements which are better for both parties involved
9. They are less coercive
   a. The person settling is potentially taking a monetary punishment either way so the incentive to take it out of coercion is lower
   i. But also monetary punishments are less coercive than prison time because you can still have a job and see your family and be part of society if you pay someone money
   b. Both sides must consent to it
   i. Whereas in a criminal case, the harmed party, being represented by the state, doesn’t get to decide if it goes to trial or not
10. So the victim may not be satisfied with the outcome and has no say over the process
11. They benefit the plaintiff
    a. The plaintiff gets money out of it, where with a criminal case, the state puts out the plea regardless of the opinion of the victim
12. They keep things out of the court
    a. While a judge needs to approve the settlement, the judge can do their thing, and prosecutors can take care of violent cases, while private parties deal with the settlement
    i. This opens up the court system so violent cases are more likely to go to trial, which means the more coercive plea bargains are not used as much
    d. During the trial
    i. Nothing changes procedurally, but the defendant doesn’t have to deal with the negative optics of being brought out in handcuffs and a jumpsuit
13. So optically, the defendant looks better which leads to less wrongful convictions based on perceived wrongdoing
    e. Post-trial
    i. One of two outcomes occur
14. The accused is found innocent
    a. which means they can walk away having been treated better than if it were a criminal case
15. The accused is found guilty
    a. They pay their monetary punishment and move on with their lives
    i. THERE IS NO PRISON
16. Less police brutality of prisoners
17. Fewer people are unnecessarily dragged into gang culture
    a. Reduce impact of the cycle of violence
18. Less people being assaulted by other prisoners
19. All the other awful things about prisons are avoided
20. Shifts the way society looks at crime
    a. Ends the prosecution of victimless crimes which is good
    i. These are things like drug possession, or not wearing a seatbelt. Crimes that only impact the person committing them
21. These won’t be prosecuted because no one is being damaged by them, and people aren’t going to press charges against themselves
    a. There are four major reasons why this is good
    i. There is less paternalism
22. The government can’t tell individuals how to live their lives, meaning individuals get more autonomy
    a. This better allows people to self-actualize because they have the freedom to develop their own opinions about what is good and what is bad for them
    i. This is especially important because it forces people to think critically about their actions. It no longer becomes a black and white ‘legal’ or ‘illegal,’ but becomes a question of what is best for me as a person
    ii. People only can press charges when the damages are substantial enough to warrant it
23. There are less trials
24. There are fewer backlogged courts
25. Which all means fewer people are being punished, which is probably good
26. Defendants are more likely to get Due Process because the court system loses the necessity for expedience*
    iii. There is less overcrowding of prisons
27. Which has a much larger impact
    a. Decrease the size of the prison industrial complex because prisons aren’t needed as much
    i. But if it were to stay alive, it would mean that the additional resources would go to the people who are in prison. Which means they can stay there more comfortably and can have more resources dedicated toward them for nutrition, education, and medical care
    iv. It decreases racism in the system
28. This is because a major cause of racism in the criminal justice system is the disproportional convictions of people of color for non-violent crimes such as drug use or prostitution
29. But also you don’t have people being pulled over and arrested for “driving while black” because there is no way police can turn that into a violent act. MANY IMPACTS
    a. When those people are no longer in courts, the image of the criminal changes, meaning less people otherize people of color
    b. You get fewer bad interactions between police and people of color
    i. Less Ferguson incidents
    ii. Less unnecessary shootings
    b. This system better solves for white collar crime
    i. Because they must face some form of prosecution
30. Bail is not a thing
    a. But as we talked about, even in a settlement, the petitioner gets money or some form of retribution
    ii. Lawyers have a larger incentive to make sure these trials are done effectively
31. Because they get a portion of the settlement or punishment
    a. This is better than the status quo because in the status quo prosecutors are often elected and may get campaign donations from the people being charged with the crimes
    i. So we get less corruption
    iii. It gives people the possibility to gain enough capital against larger organizations or corporations through class action suits
32. So if a company isn’t treating its workers right, or, more importantly, if the government fucks up, there are people willing to prosecute, and a collective action against them through groups like the ACLU make this possible
    a. While this to some extent can happen in the status quo, by expanding the role of the civil system, you better establish the connections and infrastructure to allow this to occur which means it is more like to happen
    i. This means the people who right now are most likely to get away with crimes, and are in the highest position of privilege, are going to have to face punishment, and face it where it hurts them the most: their wallets. This is why we better solve for white collar crime

Tight Block

1. This policy is philosophically unjustified
   a. Social Contract
   i. In WLD, such as the US, governments are forms in such a way that people form a social contract where some rights are given up in order for others to be protected

1. Therefore, when people violate the laws that help protect those rights, there ought be a legitimate response from the government to condemn and prevent these actions from happening
   a. The problem becomes that this case prevents the government from getting involved with these crimes
   i. This makes it seem like the government is less legitimate in its ability to uphold its end of the contract, so implementing this policy loses the government legitimacy
   b. Democratic will
   i. We as a society have decided that some things should be crimes punishable by prison
2. The problem is that this case doesn’t just change the structure of the justice system but removes an entire class of crimes as crimes
   a. We as relatively privileged people on APDA have no ability to say that other people’s understanding of how society should work is wrong, and doing so is oppressive in itself

1. Feasibility
   a. Makes prosecuting minor crimes impossible
   i. Time
   ii. Money
   iii. You don’t know who everyone who commits a crime is

1. And it’s hard to sue an unknown person
   a. This particularly harms small businesses because any time they take to do these things takes away time they could be operating their stores, so they can’t sue any edgy teen who decides to go steal a candy bar
   i. While companies like Walmart may have insurance for these losses, small stores likely don’t and they likely can’t afford private security either
2. This increases small businesses as targets for theft, causing potentially substantial losses to profit while they already struggle competing against the Walmarts of their industry
   b. Perpetuates racial and class divides
   i. Because it’s nice to say that public defenders and prosecutors will be offered, BUT:
3. Increasing the number needed (because now need prosecutors too) means that the standard for accepting them is going to have to drop in order to get the necessary supply
   a. This means that the average quality of public defenders is going to go down
4. Most small crime isn’t rewarding enough for public prosecutors to care, because they have no incentive to when their rewards are going to be relatively low
   a. So poorer people, especially racial minorities get even worse legal representation than they get now
   ii. Moreover, it’s unlikely that poorer people and people of color would even get justice even if the lawyers and prosecutors are fine
5. This is because they would likely still have to go through the government and the police to help investigate for the civil charges in order to have any chance of efficacy
   a. The problem becomes that people from low socio-economic areas and especially people of color tend not to trust the police for all the reasons stated in case
   i. So it’s far less likely that non-crimes will be dealt with in these communities under this policy, which perpetuates cycles of crime which could likely perpetuate cycles of violent crime in these areas
6. This is all made worse by this policy
   c. Interpersonal crimes
   i. People are going to be less likely to bring charges against people they care about
7. This means it is less likely that the government has the capacity to do things like break up emotionally oppressive relationships which we think is a serious problem

1. Impacts on Society
   a. More vigilante crime
   i. Because people don’t trust the government is doing its job

1. This will be especially true is more conservative areas where things like drug use and prostitution are deemed to be unacceptable
   a. Even in a world where all of these people get prosecuted for their crimes, this is still unnecessary violence that can be easily avoided
   b. Increases cycles of poverty and violence
   i. Because while victimless crimes seem ok in a vacuum, they aren’t in reality
2. Drug use tends to correlate with an increase in violent crime because it limits inhibitions
   a. This includes things like drunk driving which now can’t be dealt with until after they crash and potentially kill someone
   b. The industries that deal with victimless crimes (drugs and prostitution) tend to do other illegal things as well
   i. Gang violence from turf wars
   ii. Human trafficking
   ii. This policy doesn’t solve for the structural issues that cause poverty
3. Jail may be a symptom, but certainly is a cause
   a. However when this policy is put forward as this end-all-be-all solution to racism, it actually makes it worse
   i. Because when people of color are still trapped in cycles of poverty, the racists in society can point to it and say “Look, even without the police bothering them they still can’t get their act together”
4. This perpetuated stereotypes that poverty is the fault of the people in it which reinforces and worsens the structural racism that prevents people of color from getting access to things like stable jobs to get out of these harmful cycles
   PMR:
   There are two rounds so far in tournament and they haven't been normal, so no normal PMR so far. One was public prosecutors, one was Counter Case house arrests for nonviolent crime.
   Probably the collapses are as follows.
   MG starts with: Overview of "1) they need to beat things like strict scutiny/constitutionality, 2) that the SQUO is shitty with plea bargains, reparations to victims, etc. 3) Benefits exterior (racism, etc.).
   So PMR is probably: 1 Have they proven that SQUO is deffensible. If everything is a wash, ours makes sense. 2 What is our outcome if they win every point (outweigh).