Am I a criminal? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities








Am I a criminal?

Debate Information

Hello:

It should come as no surprise that I have been convicted of criminal behavior..  But, the behavior I was convicted of, is now legal.  So, 1) am I still a criminal?  2) Can I sue the government for false imprisonment?  3) Do I get my rights back?  4) Am I owed a public apology?  5)  What do we do about the people STILL in jail for that same behavior?

excon



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -   edited November 23
    Hi Excon, I think the argument would be made by government that you were convicted under the law with what was termed as illegal during those times so you were indeed guilty in their eyes and knowingly so, people in jail would fall under the same catagory I guess , of course I may be wrong



    excon
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    I suppose it really depends on how the past application of the law restricting the behavior you partook in is assessed today. For example, if you got convicted in Soviet Union due to expressing your free speech, and now those actions of the government are seen as crimes against humanity, then you absolutely are entitled to restitution of damages from the people who violated your rights. On the other hand, if it was something less significant, such as marijuana being illegal and found in your pocket, then it is unlikely that you will have a solid legal case to make - at least, with the way the modern legal systems work. In my view, you are still owed restitution of damages, just the damages are to be evaluated as less significant.

    As for the people who are still in jail for the behavior that is now legal, they should be released immediately, of course.
    excon
  • @excon

    What crime was the basis of your conviction?
    If memory serves me correctly it was marijuana?

    If marijuana, in the constitutional union it is still possible to be charged with pollution and illegal distribution of medication, by the act of air pollution we can distribute illegal medications t others. In basic principle, a person must remember coloration, tolerance to receive basic constitutional rights is not immunity and a person who has a United State Constitutional right to own marijuana does not have a right to use that marijuana without discretion towards others civil liberties.

    While to answer to the question is yes you can talk about civil action, or even take civil actions, while preserving American United States Constitution. Were you ever aware of murder taking place in organized crime to control the sale of marijuana? Under constitutional rights, you can be connected to that crime for simply using marijuana, without being criminally charged. Even winning a civil case the overall appeal process can take some time, even in a covid free environment.


    excon
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1297 Pts   -  
    @excon
    It’s ironic really that you are a victim of the zeitgeist of time in that you were ahead of the times. 
    Here I am bashing away at those who do the converse, ie committing atrocities now that were acceptable thousands of years ago when life was primitive and barbaric. I’m talking about religious nuts of course, who vilify and incite hatred just because “it was written “. They are the real criminals.
    excon
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1719 Pts   -  
    Yes
    excon
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 202 Pts   -  
    Homosexuality was once a criminal offense in Ireland and the UK. Oscar Wilde was a very famous gay man who was jailed for two years in 1895 because of his homosexuality.
    It wasn't until 1967 that homosexuality was decriminalized in England. It was 1982 before Northern Ireland followed suit, and 1993 for the Republic of Ireland. Gay rights took a long time to come into force in Ireland due to years of opposition by religious groups.
    In the UK in 2017, thousands of men who over the decades had been convicted of homosexuality were posthumously pardoned. One such man was Alan Turing who was convicted in 1952, and in what can only be described as an act of state terrorism, was jailed and chemically castrated for his "crime". He later took his own life.
    I am sure there are those who still consider those men to be criminals, but I am glad that most have moved away from such a bigoted attitude.
    It does show however that once a criminal doesn't necessarily mean always a criminal.
    excon
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1719 Pts   -  
    @JoeKerr

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say; that homosexuality is controllable, a choice, like marijuana use, or that marijuana use is uncontrollable, an addiction, like homosexuality?
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 202 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    "I'm not sure what you're trying to say; that homosexuality is controllable, a choice, like marijuana use, or that marijuana use is uncontrollable, an addiction, like homosexuality?"

    I don't know why you think your above question has anything to do with what I was saying.
    I'll put it simply for you. People who were once considered criminals and convicted because they were homosexuals are now no longer considered to be criminals and in fact, received posthumous pardons.
    This showed that it is possible for people who were prosecuted and convicted under a certain law, now defunct, to have their conviction quashed, receive an apology, and no longer be considered criminals.
    Now if you are able to read and understand what Excon put up for debate then you might just see that what I said contributed to that debate.
    There was nothing said about homosexuality being a choice, or about marijuana and addiction.
    I read over my original post once more just to make sure, and no, nothing about those things.
    Imagine that!


    excon
  • @JoeKerr

    In a state of the union JoeKerr, you are describing basic liberty on religion, being homosexual is a form of social religion as a state of the union of constitutional rights. The obstacle of total liberty is that as an open homosexual your actions towards men can appear much like that of any aggressive male towards female as a form of sexual assault. You are making a debate over the powers of pardon versus the act of judicial appeal.

     I am sure there are those who still consider those men to be criminals, but I am glad that most have moved away from such a bigoted attitude.
    This specific subject matter is a cause for constitutional legislation, the facts here are the men are still criminals who have been pardoned for the crime they had been convicted of.  That recognition as a witness does not make any person a bigot in itself. Unconstitutional actions and legislation are historically renowned for the social issues they create, Can an entire religion and its practice be held accountable for treason against a state of law?

    Without intentionally assuming the role of bigot in an attempt to find the more perfect constitutional union on social wrong is a homosexual attempting to plagiarize marriage a crime? Yes, it is the crime of fraud, the ease of conviction and the sentencing of any punishment for the crime becomes the point of request. Religion has a constitutional right to address such an attack by a second independent religion upon itself, where a person can easily agree the punishments may not fit the crimes on a level of the legal precedent already in place at these times, it doesn't mean no crimes transpired that would not have deserved some form of punishment. The basic idea at glance is binvir is not marriage do you see that? is it clear and obvious are there any similarities making these titles the same? Is it the simplest way to display publicly as part of the G rating system already established for the public?

    "summing up."
    While in the topic of constitutional state of the union a legal precedent that exists is in the idea of social media Insurance, or personal liability insurance in which jurors do not all have the liberty of coverage. An argument for malpractice can be made when a system is held accountable at a higher cost than the jurors who are to have participated in the wrong. They still pay for insurance with many others as a member of the county or city jury pool. The grievance you are making is asking only for evidence that homosexuality can be held criminal in a united state comprised of much more basic principles of crime like fraud, perjury, and defamation of character as basic principles. Is this correct?
  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    the facts here are the men are still criminals who have been pardoned for the crime they had been convicted of. 

    Hello John:

    Nahhh...  A pardon ISN'T a you're still guilty, but I forgive you...   No..  A pardon ERASES the conviction as though it never happened.

    excon
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1719 Pts   -  
    @JoeKerr

    "Under certain conditions"  those conditions being that the act is involuntary/uncontrollable.  Once again, with your comparison, are you trying to say that marijuana usage is uncontrollable, aka an addiction?
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -   edited November 25
    @excon

    Do you ever listen to Parliment Funkadelic when you're high? 

    And, Yes, you are still a criminal if you did it when it was illegal, and no, the government owes you no restitution.    
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -   edited November 25
    JoeKerr said:
    Homosexuality was once a criminal offense in Ireland and the UK. Oscar Wilde was a very famous gay man who was jailed for two years in 1895 because of his homosexuality.
    It wasn't until 1967 that homosexuality was decriminalized in England. It was 1982 before Northern Ireland followed suit, and 1993 for the Republic of Ireland. Gay rights took a long time to come into force in Ireland due to years of opposition by religious groups.
    In the UK in 2017, thousands of men who over the decades had been convicted of homosexuality were posthumously pardoned. One such man was Alan Turing who was convicted in 1952, and in what can only be described as an act of state terrorism, was jailed and chemically castrated for his "crime". He later took his own life.
    I am sure there are those who still consider those men to be criminals, but I am glad that most have moved away from such a bigoted attitude.
    It does show however that once a criminal doesn't necessarily mean always a criminal.
    I'm not sure about the laws in the UK, but a chemical castration is definitely something I would call a means for restitution. In the US, in a legal manner, if an act was done in a time when it's illegal, but later becomes legal, the initial act is still a crime. But when laws are found to be antithetical to our constitution, and even immoral and inhumane, then it does merit restitution. Laws outlawing homosexuality are not constitutional in the US, but they have been used. So if those acts were done when it was illegal, but the laws themselves were found to be unethical legal principles to begin with, then restitution is warranted. This type of infraction is different than excon smoking a bong and being arrested, only for it to become legal.         

    But you are correct, it doesn't mean that once someone is a criminal, they will always be considered a criminal.  
  • piloteerpiloteer 1442 Pts   -  
    excon said:
    Hello:

      5)  What do we do about the people STILL in jail for that same behavior?

    excon
    A justice system that rests on rehabilitation rather than incarceration is more affective at keeping people from becoming repeat offenders, and is less burdensome on taxpayers. But if it's just people in prison for weed convictions, I see no reason to subsidize their food and housing, of which the taxpayers get the bill for, just for weed. And there's no HUGE need to get people into rehabilitation just for a weed conviction either. 
    excon
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch