YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Law & Criminal Justice - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 4 (Term 2)

Law & Criminal Justice - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 4 (Term 2) — Transcript

by Manchester Debating Union · 12,224 words · 1,729 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01okay uh wonderful we'll kick things off
0:03then um so this week we're going to be
0:05moving on from our principal workshops
0:07and talking uh about something new so
0:09this week we're talking about Law And
0:11Criminal Justice uh in debating um in
0:14particular this is a workshop that's
0:16going to come in two parts uh in the
0:18first part we're going to go through
0:20what you might have heard of before as
0:22the five pillars of the Criminal Justice
0:24System we have four of them because we
0:26grouped two of them together um we want
0:28to talk about four kind of impact that
0:30you'll see in debates about Law And
0:32Criminal Justice how it is you might
0:34weigh between them how it is you might
0:36reach them in the second part of the
0:37workshop then we're going to talk about
0:38the process of Criminal Justice so that
0:41is moving through the various parts of
0:43the criminal justice system from trial
0:45through prison through life after prison
0:48and what common pieces of analysis you
0:49might see uh that is or what common
0:52characterization you might see that are
0:53useful in debates at various parts of
0:55that process as usual um I have zoom
0:58chat open on my left monitor so if you
1:00have any questions as we're going please
1:01feel free to drop those into the zoom
1:03chat and I'll answer them as we go
1:05otherwise we'll jump in and we'll get
1:07started by talking about the purposes of
1:09the criminal justice
1:11system so to start with let's talk about
1:13public protection so broadly public
1:16protection involves two claims
1:17incarceration and deterrence both of
1:19whom's goal is to in some sense protect
1:21the uh the public from crimes in some
1:24capacity let's start by talking about
1:26incarceration so in in incarceration our
1:29goal goal is to essentially prevent uh
1:33the criminal who has committed a crime
1:35from being able to commit that crime
1:37again usually by for example by
1:39imprisoning them so that they obviously
1:41don't have the actual capacity to
1:43recommit that crime I think one of the
1:45problems with the application of
1:47incarceration in debating uh and the
1:49thing that I then want to talk about and
1:51explain is that in order to justify way
1:54incarceration is necessary or at least
1:56why it is a useful thing to be doing in
1:58the criminal justice system one of the
2:00things that you need to be able to appr
2:02prove is that re offense is something
2:04that's likely to happen because
2:06obviously if someone commits a oneoff
2:08crime and they're never going to commit
2:09that crime again then incarceration
2:11isn't going to be something that's
2:12particularly useful in preventing more
2:15harms from occurring so what we want to
2:17start off by doing is giving you three
2:19reasons why re offense is likely for the
2:22at least for many crimes and therefore
2:25why incarceration is a useful goal in
2:27the criminal justice system and
2:29therefore also a useful impact or a
2:31useful mechanism by which to reach
2:32impact in debates uh about that criminal
2:35justice system so for least three
2:37reasons then we're going to give you why
2:39people might reoffend in instances uh of
2:42having committed a crime uh the first is
2:45what we've labeled as situational
2:47reasons that is it is often the case for
2:50people who commit crimes that they
2:52commit them uh largely because of
2:54environmental factors around them that
2:57is to say for example uh you should keep
2:59keep in mind for example crimes of
3:01necessity here I.E stealing because you
3:04face poverty or maybe uh I don't know uh
3:08entering into a gang because it is the
3:10only option within your neighborhood in
3:11order to gain some degree of protection
3:14and so on I think the problem then that
3:16you are pointing to that leads to re
3:18offense is that whilst it might be that
3:20you have been caught and potentially
3:22even face some form of punishment that
3:24doesn't incarcerate you for a particular
3:27crime all of those environmental or
3:29situation reasons still apply to you and
3:32therefore it's the case that you're
3:33likely to reoffend because the reason
3:34that you offended before still actually
3:37drives you as a
3:38motivator secondly on reasons why it is
3:41that you might re offend uh there are
3:44various patterns of behavior that might
3:46occre here that is for example if I am
3:49someone who has committed a crime I
3:51don't know I've assaulted someone in
3:53public as a crime of passion because I
3:57uh was angry in that instance this often
4:00speaks to patterns of behavior that I
4:03have that led to me committing that
4:04crime that is in the example I gave you
4:07I might just be someone who is
4:09predisposed to bursts of anger and is
4:12bad at controlling that anger for
4:14various reasons I formed habits that
4:16means I'm likely to enact the results of
4:18that emotional response onto others what
4:21that means is that the crime that I've
4:22committed wasn't one that was driven
4:24rationally it wasn't one that's one off
4:27rather it was one that was driven by
4:28patterns of behavior that I myself have
4:31internally that I've learned over time
4:33and those patterns of behavior haven't
4:35changed either just by the fact that a
4:37particular crime that I've committed has
4:39come to light and that means I'm likely
4:41to reoffend the third and I think the
4:44most obvious uh in debates the one that
4:46comes up the most I guess is that there
4:48is just a lack of consequences that is
4:51if we don't incarcerate people then uh
4:54they think that they've gotten away with
4:56the crime that it was something that
4:57actually was something that was very
4:58good for them when they did it because
5:00they gained some degree of benefit
5:02presumably from committing that crime
5:04and if they don't face equivalent
5:06punishment or incarceration uh they're
5:08likely to feel like that was a decision
5:09that was worthwhile and therefore is
5:11worthwhile them taking again if they
5:12feel that lack of consequences that
5:14means that they are likely to reoffend
5:16obviously this third one also to some
5:19degree speaks to deterence because this
5:21is deterrence for the criminal from
5:22committing the crime again but it at
5:24least tells you that re offense to some
5:26extent is likely and therefore
5:28incarceration is a useful thing to be
5:30doing in the criminal justice
5:33system secondly and I think kind of more
5:36interestingly usually in debates the one
5:38where a lot more of the clashing debates
5:40uh arises in terms of public protection
5:43is deterrence that is both trying to
5:45prevent the criminal who has committed
5:47the crime from committing that same
5:48crime in future by uh making it clear to
5:51them that there is some form of
5:52punishment but also doing the same thing
5:54for society as a whole that is trying to
5:57preemptively stop people from committing
5:59Crimes by convincing them that the
6:01crimes won't be worth the punishment
6:03that they would AC what I want to do
6:05here then is go through how this Clash
6:07might P out give you some reasons why it
6:09is deterrence might be effective as a
6:11mechanism and also some reasons why
6:13deterrence might not be effective
6:15especially on that second thing I think
6:17this is something that's often left a
6:19little untouched in debates where there
6:20are often good reasons you can give that
6:22mitigate the effect of deterrence as a
6:24mechanism in the criminal justice system
6:26so to start with then why is it that
6:29deterrence might be effective I think
6:30there's two reasons to give here the
6:32first and I think quite straightforward
6:34one is simply that fear of prison or
6:37punishment is something that affects how
6:39people behave that is if I am someone
6:42who is committing a crime or considering
6:44committing a crime and I understand that
6:46if I am caught for that crime I will
6:48face some large degree of punishment
6:50maybe I'll be locked up in prison for
6:51years maybe I'll have to pay a
6:53particularly large fine or whatever
6:55these things factor into my decision-mak
6:57calculus I don't want to ACR those
6:59punishments because they are things that
7:00potentially scare me or I know would
7:02affect me negatively and therefore make
7:04me less likely to commit that crime
7:06because it just doesn't feel worthwhile
7:07to me secondly though in terms of why
7:10deterrence might work uh the deterrent
7:12effect also speaks to how it is we
7:14consider crimes societally that is when
7:18crimes have high punishment the way we
7:20discuss them makes them seem less
7:22permissible because we see that
7:24punishment not just as a thing that we
7:26are doing to that individual criminal
7:27but also as a commentary on how bad the
7:30action that they took was so when for
7:32example in the media we see certain
7:34crimes achieving very high punishments
7:37this means that it's not just the case
7:38that potential criminals who are
7:40considering committing that crime think
7:42about that punishment and for fear of
7:45that punishment won't commit that action
7:47but also as a society as a whole we
7:50internalize to some extent the idea that
7:53that crime in particular is something
7:55that is impermissible what that means is
7:58even when I'm not actively considering
8:00the punishment I am less likely to
8:02commit that crime because it's something
8:03that I've internalized is less
8:04societally acceptable and therefore is
8:06further away from the behaviors that I
8:08might want to take and that means that
8:10the deterrent effect can even work to
8:12some extent if I don't consider the
8:13punishment directly at the time that I
8:16am committing the crime having said that
8:18though why might the deterrent effect
8:20not might not be as effective as you
8:23might think three reasons that I'm going
8:26to give here two of which I think come
8:28up in debates very regular the third of
8:30which I don't think comes up in debates
8:31maybe as much as it should let's start
8:34with the first two then so reason number
8:36one uh the one I've kind of hint that
8:38when talking about the reasons why
8:39deterrence might be effective is that
8:41often when people commit a crime they
8:43aren't properly thinking about the
8:45punishment these fall into broadly two
8:47categories the first is that you might
8:50be in an instance of for example
8:51committing a crime of passion uh you're
8:54not making that decision rationally when
8:56you decide to commit that crime and
8:58therefore you aren't really making the
9:00rational tradeoff between the benefits
9:03that that committing that crime will
9:04bring you and the punishment that it
9:05will entail at all and therefore it
9:07doesn't matter what the punishment is
9:08because you're just not thinking about
9:10it and therefore deterrence obviously
9:11cannot have an effect on you secondly
9:14though often it's the case uh that
9:16punishment just feels less proximate to
9:19people committing crimes than the
9:21potential benefits do so to give an
9:23example to try to make this clearer if I
9:25am someone who is very hungry I'm
9:29starving and I'm going to steal uh some
9:32food in order to feed myself it probably
9:35doesn't matter all that much what the
9:37punishment for that is to me because
9:39that hunger is something that's more
9:40approximate to me than the abstract
9:42notion of punishment if I were to be
9:44caught that is I feel the hunger inside
9:46me right now and it's something that
9:48dominates my mind because it's all I can
9:50think about whereas the punishment is
9:52something that's much further away
9:54obviously to some extent what the
9:55punishment is does still matter here but
9:57it comes at a heavily discounted great
9:59because I'm going to think about the
10:01punishment as being much less important
10:04than the reasons that I'm committing the
10:05crime in that instance because those
10:07reasons are just much closer and more
10:09tangible to me secondly in reasons why
10:12it is that deterrence might not be
10:14effective it's just the very simple
10:16claim that often when you commit a crime
10:17you commit it because you don't think
10:19you're going to get caught right you're
10:21not planning to be caught for that crime
10:23and therefore to acrw that punishment
10:24the plan is to commit the crime and to
10:26get away with it and therefore it
10:28doesn't matter all that much in lots of
10:30instances what the punishment is going
10:32to be because your intention is just not
10:34to get caught for that crime and
10:36therefore at least your rational
10:37calculus your assumption is that you
10:38will never actually ACW that punishment
10:41in the first place thirdly uh and this
10:44is the one that I think comes up maybe
10:45less than it potentially should is the
10:48claim that prison sentences in
10:49particular are something that are hard
10:51to conceptualize the depth of harm that
10:54comes from them I think this is broadly
10:56for two reasons the first is that I
10:58don't think general public has a very
11:00good conception of what life inside
11:02prison is like uh we're going to touch a
11:04lot more later on what the depth of harm
11:07of Life inside prison might be but I
11:09think it's worth when we get there just
11:10checking back to this mechanism and
11:12comparing that to what you might think
11:15that individual uh criminals might
11:17expect life in prison to be like
11:20secondly though even if I have a good
11:22understanding of what life in prison
11:24might be like it's hard for me to
11:26conceptualize the sentencing that I'm
11:28given the reason for this is that we
11:30give sentences typically in numbers of
11:33years right so I might say that you are
11:35being sentenced to two years in prison
11:39and it's hard for you to conceptualize
11:40exactly how long that is because the
11:42number is small and you don't have a
11:44good idea of what it's life to live for
11:46two years straight I think there's two
11:49things going on here one the choice of
11:51number is small and therefore underplays
11:53the amount of sentencing that you're
11:55acing in comparison to for example me
11:57saying the same thing as being 73 days
11:59in prison whilst these are equivalent
12:01makes the sentencing sound far worse
12:04secondly though and this is the same
12:06kind of bias that we talked about last
12:08week when we were talking about
12:09conception of large numbers in general
12:11humans are bad at conceiving of what
12:12it's like to be for example in prison
12:15for a large amount of time in a row and
12:18so we usually think about the harm that
12:19occs maybe in the first couple of days
12:21and then we just say that happens for a
12:23really long time but the difference then
12:25between for example two or three years
12:27doesn't really have the effect that
12:29extra year in our mind because we can't
12:31conceive of what it is that extra year
12:34does for
12:35us that's all of the mechanisms that we
12:37wanted to talk about on deterrence why
12:39it might be effective why it might be
12:41ineffective and therefore everything we
12:42were going to talk about on kind of
12:43public protection as an impact so far
12:45before we at least come to the second
12:47section um before I move on are there
12:49any questions anyone wants to ask about
12:51public protection at this point
13:03okay if not there's nothing coming in
13:05the zoom chat maybe people are typing I
13:07will come back to those questions if
13:08they are otherwise um I'm going to move
13:10on uh to talk about Rehabilitation next
13:13so we're going to talk in detail about
13:15the process of Rehabilitation later
13:16because we're going to talk about what
13:17life inside prison might be like um at
13:21this point then all we want to talk
13:22about is why it is that we care about
13:25rehabilitation in the first place why is
13:28Rehabilitation something you ought to
13:29find valuable in debates about the
13:31criminal justice justice system broadly
13:34two reasons here the first is that
13:37obviously Rehabilitation is something
13:39that serves to prevent future crimes
13:42that is if I'm able to rehabilitate a
13:44criminal I'm able to change their
13:46decision-making calculus in future such
13:48that they don't feel the need to commit
13:49crimes and therefore I'm able to
13:52alleviate harms that might have accured
13:53to the public in future so this is kind
13:56of a public protection mechanism it's
13:58just one that
13:59down the road obviously though if this
14:02was absolutely the only thing that we
14:04cared about then we might want to just
14:06lock people up forever because that
14:07would equally prevent future crimes I
14:10think the reason that you don't just do
14:11that is that the state to some degree
14:14also has a duty not just to the public
14:16but also often towards the individual
14:18that has committed the crime the most
14:20common way that you're able to argue
14:22this within debates is to say that when
14:25individuals commit crimes they did not
14:27have complete agency to make the
14:29decision that led to them committing
14:30that crime most clearly for example this
14:32would be in the case of crimes of
14:34necessity where the state has for
14:36example created situations of poverty
14:38and fails to alleviate them that drove
14:41people uh to feel the need to commit
14:44crimes in order to try to alleviate
14:46their own situation but also for example
14:48very often in other instances of crime
14:51when it's just about the um internal
14:54thought process that you have rather
14:56than the situational behaviors around
14:58you again the state is someone who has
15:00failed for example to give you
15:02potentially for example correct
15:03education and so on and therefore is to
15:06some extent responsible for the crimes
15:08that you've committed and therefore the
15:09harms that you later acre that means
15:12that the state to some extent has an
15:13obligation not just towards the victim
15:16or towards the public but also towards
15:18the criminal and therefore we owe them
15:20to some extent a degree of
15:21Rehabilitation because that's the thing
15:23we ought to have given them in the first
15:24place the ability to live a life that
15:26didn't necessitate them committing
15:28crimes uh and so this is almost even a
15:30reparatory
15:31gtam um so Chris has asked me a question
15:35in the chat Chris I'm going to come back
15:36to that on the next slide when we
15:37discuss retribution um moving on if
15:40there are no other questions then to the
15:42next slide uh we're now going to talk
15:44about victim closure victim closure is
15:47something I want to talk about in quite
15:48a bit more detail and the reason is that
15:50there's a common problem I think that
15:52Debaters face when they try to argue
15:54that victim closure is something that we
15:56ought care about in debating and that
15:59problem is that arguments about victim
16:01closure usually get marginalized fairly
16:03easily that is it's hard I think to
16:06establish or at least a lots of teams
16:07fail to establish that the effect on
16:10victims of failing to for example give
16:12adequate punishment for them to get
16:13closure is that the victims you know
16:15just kind of upset for a while they've
16:17already suffered the harm of the crime
16:19and the additional harm that they're
16:21gaining from not seeing punishment is
16:22just a minor you know emotional response
16:26it's not anything that's really
16:27significant it's certainly less
16:28significant than public protection it's
16:30probably less significant than for
16:31example Rehabilitation if that's the
16:34ability to get out of prison in the
16:36first place given the things we're going
16:37to say about how bad prison is uh later
16:40on and therefore maybe we ought not care
16:43about victim closure that much obviously
16:45there's not lots more written on this
16:47slide so I don't think that's a complete
16:49take on victim closure what I want to do
16:51then uh now is talk about how you might
16:53circumvent those issues I think there's
16:55broadly two things you can do the first
16:58is you need to clearly explain why it is
17:00that the lack of punishment actually
17:02affects victims considerably um three
17:05things I want to say here one uh notice
17:09that we are socialized in order to
17:11understand that when a wrong is done the
17:13correct response to that wrong is that
17:16punishment will be uh doled out in
17:19response to it so for example as a child
17:21when you do something wrong your parents
17:24punish you as a response to that wrong
17:26and so you're socially conditioned to
17:28expect when wrongs are done punishment
17:31will be what meets them what that means
17:33is that when punishment does not ACR the
17:36victim feels like their pain has not
17:38been recognized that they've been
17:40disrespected because if a severe wrong
17:43was done to them then they've been
17:45socially conditioned to expect that the
17:46response to that ought to be if that
17:49wrong was a significant one that the
17:51person who committed that wrong would be
17:53punished in some meaningful sense what
17:56that means is when that punishment
17:57doesn't happen that victim feels lots of
18:00emotional responses they feel anger they
18:03feel pain they feel unrecognized the end
18:05effect of this isn't just that emotional
18:08response it's that the crime that was
18:10committed is more likely to stay
18:12constantly on the victim's mind that is
18:15rather than being able to move on for
18:16example when they lie in bed at night
18:17they're likely to again feel that anger
18:20and that pain and they're likely
18:21therefore to go over the crime again and
18:23again in their head and this cards
18:25grooves in their mind where they
18:27therefore more likely to think about
18:29those issues what that means is that the
18:31victim's life ends up being debilitated
18:34in two ways that could have been avoided
18:37firstly I think in general the victim is
18:40likely to just feel for example fear
18:43more often when they try to engage in
18:45activities so for example if I were the
18:47victim of a mugging and I've been
18:49carving those grooves in My Mind by
18:51going over the event again and again I'm
18:54likely to feel more like or more likely
18:56to feel when I go out for a walk like
18:58that mugging is something that could
19:00happen to me the reason for this isn't
19:02that that mugging has become any more
19:04likely I have the probably the exact
19:06same chance of being mugged as I as I
19:08had before the difference is that the
19:11risk feels more approximate to me
19:14because I've spent more time thinking
19:15about it and therefore in my internal
19:17thought process it feels like something
19:19that's more likely because it dominates
19:21more of my thoughts and that means that
19:23just when I go out for a walk now I'm
19:25more likely to be worried about getting
19:27mugged because I spent so much more time
19:29thinking about that and therefore I'm
19:30more likely to be fearful secondly
19:33though the emotional response limits
19:36Your Capacity to enjoy other activities
19:38that is if you're trying to enjoy
19:40something else but all you can fear is
19:41the anger or the pain of the crime that
19:43was committed to you and was not
19:45properly punished and you can't enjoy
19:46that other thing because you can't ever
19:48fully be in that moment because you're
19:50experiencing this other negative
19:52emotional response instead and so it's
19:54not just that you have some small
19:56negative emotional response but rather
19:58you can't even enjoy the life that you
20:00deserve to have until the state has
20:02actually doled out the appropriate
20:04punishment what I want to say here
20:06finally then is that whilst it is the
20:08case these mechanisms allow you to
20:10increase the degree of impact to the
20:12victim it's not always or necessarily
20:14even often the case that these on a kind
20:17of purely utilitarian basis are going to
20:19outweigh for example public protection
20:21as an impact that means that you usually
20:24need some reason that we care about the
20:26victim in particular some kind of princi
20:28obligation in order to be able to make
20:31this the most convincing thing in the
20:33debate so why do we care about the
20:34victim in a principled manner the thing
20:37I would say here is that the victim uh
20:40was limited by the state in their
20:42capacity to exercise self-defense right
20:45when a crime happened to them they
20:47didn't protect themselves adequately
20:48from that crime both because for example
20:50laws might have constrained their
20:52actions in that instance but also
20:54because the expectation that the law
20:56would be upheld meant that they probably
20:58didn't take preventative measures that
20:59they otherwise could have taken uh that
21:02meant that that crime would not have
21:03affected them that is you've outsourced
21:06Your Capacity to defend yourself from
21:08crimes to the state and in this instance
21:10the state has failed to exercise that
21:13self-defense on behalf of you that means
21:16that there is a reparatory duty towards
21:18the victim that exists on behalf of the
21:20state here it needs to try to put the
21:22victim back into the position that
21:24victim would have been if that crime
21:26hadn't been committed or is close to
21:27that position possible so you should see
21:29the reparatory duty stuff we talked
21:31about in the principal workshop last
21:32week what that means is obviously for
21:35example if money was taken we might do
21:37things like Levy CRI uh fines on the uh
21:40convict in order to try to restore that
21:42money to the victim but also we should
21:44do things towards restoring the
21:46emotional state that that victim ought
21:48to have had and therefore the kind of
21:50punishment for the reasons we said
21:51earlier is something that is actually
21:53owed to the victim it is owed that you
21:56see that that criminal is punished
21:59finally in terms of purposes of the
22:01Criminal Justice System I want to talk
22:03briefly about retribution and then I'll
22:05pause for questions the thing I want to
22:07say about retribution is that
22:09principally justifying retribution in
22:11general is something that's very very
22:14difficult usually this has to be
22:16something that's motion specific I.E you
22:18have to be in a motion that either
22:20requires you to get something very
22:22particular uh about retribution that
22:24exists or be an emotion that's going to
22:27lead the other side to one ing to for
22:29strategic reasons concede to some extent
22:32that retribution is something that
22:33you're going to care about in general I
22:35think it's very hard to convince the
22:38judges at a principal level that we
22:40ought care just about harming a criminal
22:43because they harm someone else what that
22:45means is that the advice I want to give
22:47is that this is something you should
22:48avoid as an impact unless absolutely
22:51necessary it's usually not something
22:53that I think is particularly effective
22:55and in almost every uh criminal justice
22:57motion that you will end end up debating
22:59the previous three kinds of impacts that
23:01we talked about are sufficient for you
23:03to have a quite deep and interesting
23:06debate where there's lots of room to win
23:08uh and so on that basis I don't think
23:10retribution is necessarily the most
23:12useful metric to be talking about before
23:14we move on to the second part of the
23:16workshop then I just want to answer uh
23:18whatever questions there are so if you
23:19have them please feel free to type them
23:23uh in the chat in the meantime there was
23:25a question from Chris which is is there
23:27a way to run both Rehabilitation and
23:29retribution without having tension in
23:32the case um so the first thing the first
23:34comment to make on this and the reason I
23:36held off on answering this is obviously
23:38to some extent if I don't want to run
23:39retribution at all then the answer to
23:42this question should be I don't
23:43particularly care because the advice I
23:45would give is just not to run
23:47retribution however having said that I
23:49do think that these things can be
23:51principally consistent the reason is
23:53that you can have obligations that push
23:56in various directions and you want to
23:58maximize your ability to meet all of
24:00these obligations Rehabilitation is
24:02something that presumably occurs in the
24:04long term it might be for example that I
24:07can simultaneously to some degree reach
24:10retribution by punishing the person who
24:11committed that crime and have that
24:13punishment achieve Rehabilitation I.E I
24:16have specific obligations to various
24:18people the obligation to the victim to
24:20some extent to uh provide them with
24:23retribution the obligation to the
24:26offender to provide them with
24:27rehabilitation and I am able to meet
24:30both of those obligations by performing
24:32some degree of punishment and to that
24:34extent yes you can run both of these
24:36things at the same time there's no
24:37inherent tension there are there any
24:40other questions about this first half of
24:42the
24:44workshop yeah um I wanted to ask about
24:48Rehabilitation and kind of Retribution
24:51but on larger scale so for example
24:54reparations how can you like how can do
24:57them together
24:59um if if you know what I mean like
25:02because um which word there are three
25:05words on R and I get confused between
25:06them now reparations are kind of like
25:09wrongdoings of a country to another like
25:13country or a group of individuals in the
25:16country right and but we also say that
25:20retribution is not principally good
25:23argument but the same time reparations
25:25are yeah um so reparations uh doesn't
25:28just mean uh at least in the way it's
25:30used in debating uh countries paying
25:33something back to some group within the
25:35country rather reparations refers to
25:37something we talked about last week
25:38which is the reparatory principle which
25:40is the claim that when a wrong is done
25:43you have an obligation to restore the
25:45world to the state as if that wrong
25:47hadn't been done so for example think if
25:49your TV is stolen from you the person
25:50who stole it probably has an obligation
25:52to return it to you and then we're using
25:54this as a justification for example in
25:56the situation of the victim to say that
25:57the state failed to defend that victim
26:00self-defense and that would meant a
26:02wrong was done to that victim and
26:03therefore the state has a duty to
26:05restore to that victim the situation
26:07they would have been if it weren't for
26:09that wrong being done hopefully that
26:11makes sense um there is like how yeah
26:15just sorry it just how does it like
26:18isn't it on the largest SC of saying
26:20it's a retribution basically like was
26:22the difference between retribution and
26:25um reparations because like for me like
26:29basically a very similar thing no so
26:33these go in opposite directions I think
26:35in reparations you return something to
26:37someone that was taken from them in
26:39retribution the claim is that you ought
26:42punish people for a wrong that they've
26:44done um that is one is a kind of
26:47positive claim in which you restore the
26:49world to its moral track if you like in
26:51the other you just make the claim that
26:53because someone has done a wrong you
26:55ought to harm them too so rather than
26:57Resto rather than kind of doing a right
27:00in some sense you are doing a further
27:02harm um having said that at this point
27:05so there's another question from Chris
27:07there are lots of which is also I
27:09believe about retribution on the basis
27:12that we like the advice we're giving you
27:14is that retribution isn't a principle
27:15that you are going to be able to I think
27:17very easily establish in debates I don't
27:19want to spend lots of this time in this
27:20Workshop talking about how retribution
27:22is consistent with other claims um
27:24because I don't think it's potentially
27:26the best use of time maybe if we have
27:28time at the end we'll come back to this
27:30but otherwise I think we'll move on for
27:31now to the second half of the workshop
27:34um for which I believe I'm handing over
27:36to Lucy uh yeah I'm just going to check
27:39my audio is
27:40good cool excellent okay um so in the
27:44second half we're going to talk more
27:45about the more practical stuff let's say
27:47uh and go through the process of
27:49Criminal Justice um from The Trial
27:51process to safy prison system and then
27:53uh to the life after prison and going
27:55through a couple of um I would say
27:57important arguments or characterizations
27:59that you might be using um quite often
28:02uh when you are debating related motions
28:04um so starting with the trial process um
28:06the first thing I would note is that
28:08there's a sort of an overarching theme
28:10and of the characterization I'm going to
28:12be talking about now is that often
28:14criminal justice motions that are
28:15related to a trial process often have to
28:17do with say suggesting some sort of
28:19policies that are correct like trying to
28:22correct existing biases and existing
28:25problems in the child process so it's
28:27very useful for you to know how to
28:29characterize and explain what those
28:31problems and biases in the trial process
28:33are so you can explain how exactly the
28:36motion is correcting them or if you are
28:38or power it's making them worse SL not
28:40actually helping them at all um is that
28:43a question yes after you done only then
28:47will I understand sorry um after you're
28:49done explaining I can wait okay uh we
28:52probably going to have like a Q&A
28:54section after like after the thing so if
28:57if you want to the question for them
28:59then it's that would be also good uh but
29:01if it's something very specific to a
29:02slide I'm also going to ask afterwards
29:04cool um so uh yeah starting with uh the
29:08so somewhat the very first thing uh even
29:10before the trial starts uh the first
29:13kind of bias you can point out is biased
29:15with during the evidence Gathering
29:17itself um so it can be pointed out that
29:20very often there exists some sort of
29:21confirmation bias and a tendency to
29:23tunnel vision a particular subject for
29:25example if you have police that is often
29:27also underfunded meaning that they do
29:29not have the resources to actually do
29:31really really proper investigation very
29:33often when you have uh for example
29:35racial biases or like socio economic
29:38background biases that tends to be a
29:40tendency among people to pick a
29:43particular subject that fits that
29:45description and kind of tunnel vision
29:47and sort of
29:49um focus on the evidence that is
29:52confirming the guilt of that particular
29:55subject and kind of filtering out the
29:57one that doesn't
29:58um so very often what happens is for
30:00example that the that the individuals
30:02who are investigating are able to find
30:04uh like specific uh Witnesses who are
30:07able to say uh that they've actually
30:10seen that subject uh that that
30:12particular suspect um and uh they are
30:15able to pick these and then you ignore
30:17things that would go against that for
30:19example some sort of aliis uh paying
30:21less attention to them Etc I wrote
30:24subject I meant suspect um so this is A1
30:28way in which the bias often occurs even
30:30before the trial uh exists uh even
30:33starts and which is how you can also
30:35point out uh why very often like there
30:38is a tendency to have particular groups
30:40of people over represented uh in trial
30:43processes in the first place the second
30:45thing then to talk about specifically in
30:47Trials are lawyers so the one thing that
30:50very often gets uh addressed in debates
30:53is the role of wealth um so talking
30:55about this is useful for any motion that
30:57is related to Rich actors in court and
30:59sort of limiting that power so it can be
31:02rich people um so uh for example the
31:06motion this house would require all
31:07defendants in criminal cases to be
31:09represented only by state employed
31:11lawyers is a motion where if you are on
31:13golf of that motion you are required to
31:16uh explain why uh they're under status
31:19quo where people can pay and pick a
31:22private lawyer there is some sort of
31:23Injustice and there's some sort of
31:25advantage that rich people would have
31:27obviously it also can apply to other
31:29Rich actors for example companies and
31:31why it is bad that companies are able to
31:33buy really really massive amounts of
31:35lawyers that are able to help them so
31:37the claim then is that rich people
31:39obviously given that they have money or
31:41companies can afford better lawyers I
31:44think the often the problem that people
31:47have when it comes to arguing this is
31:49that they do not explain why it actually
31:51matters so what is it that the lawyer
31:53actually does for you what advantages
31:56might it have to have a good lawyer
31:57because even if I'm buying this claim if
31:59I'm not sure what difference it actually
32:01makes for a rich person to have a really
32:02good lawyer and for a poor person to
32:04have not as as good lawyer it is unclear
32:07how big that impact is um so uh before
32:09we going to give you a big list of
32:11things that a lawyer can do for you um
32:13just to ask uh if people have any ideas
32:16uh what do people think that a lawyer do
32:19does for the person they are defending
32:22and what advantages might it have to be
32:25able to get a really good lawyer so if
32:27you want to unmute your yourself that's
32:28fine if you want to type it in the chat
32:30or DM me that's also fine I'm going to
32:32give you a couple seconds to
32:36think am I audible y yeah uh so in
32:40general lawyers the represent the core
32:43usually
32:44barristers um and the main thing that
32:46they do is they go through the facts of
32:48the case and try and find arguments as
32:50to why or not um as to why that uh their
32:54client is not
32:56guilty um so usually that that would
32:59either be finding loopholes in in
33:01different laws or different uh exclusion
33:04Clauses and things like that that that
33:05exist in the law or like in contracts
33:08and things like that that
33:10exist um more than than not it will also
33:14um include trying to find reasons why
33:18the uh reasons why the prosecution would
33:21say that their client is guilty and then
33:23trying to disproof that on on the face
33:25on the face of the fact
33:28yeah uh that's a lot of things that I
33:30think are all of them are going to go
33:32through them um so yeah those are all
33:33good answers uh there is some stuff in
33:36the chat uh Chris says uh rough is lot
33:39of the similar things going through
33:40evidence questioning Witnesses which you
33:42can do better if you are good dedicate
33:44time to the case uh build Report with
33:46the judge or jury be more eloquent Etc
33:48so that's also a bunch of good things um
33:52Julia says the private lawyers typically
33:54have more time to pay attention to your
33:55case because you pay them per hour uh
33:58that is definitely true um so if you can
34:01also think of what is it that the lawyer
34:02is going to be doing in that time uh and
34:05why specifically more time is helpful so
34:07maybe if you have an extra addition to
34:09that it would be also helpful but it's
34:10definitely true um Olga says and this is
34:14very good look for legal loopholes and
34:15find a bunch of precedents where similar
34:17cases have resulted in favorable outcome
34:19yeah um and better and more lawyers are
34:23probably better at establishing more
34:24doubt yeah um anything else that people
34:26can think of now
34:32uh yeah is that um um so actually I'm
34:35not sure about this but um lawyers
34:37basically you know are trained to
34:39present the case in a way which is which
34:42goes above and beyond just presentation
34:44of facts they can build a very
34:45convincing rational it's the way they
34:47it's the way they have been just trained
34:49legal training I mean that is that that
34:52the way we are having a workshop here we
34:54seeing how to really come with arguments
34:55and how to you know build proper and
34:58everything the structure to it that a
34:59normal lay man can may not may not be
35:02able to come up with that easily and I
35:04think that is what law that's what the
35:06biggest asset is yeah yeah I think I
35:09think that also definitely makes sense
35:11uh so Julia also says that with more
35:13time they can do things like come up
35:14with better arguments spend more time on
35:16convincing jury members Etc that yeah uh
35:18that is fair allas says bully Witnesses
35:21if
35:22necessary uh and anss maybe also come
35:26from similar backgrounds of judges for
35:27example Elite schools know what
35:29Frameworks would work better so yeah
35:31that's that's that's definitely also
35:34true um yeah uh look for more people of
35:37similar cases to establish a stronger
35:38case yeah so that's uh already I think
35:41Chris also mentioned in terms of
35:42presidents yeah uh Melinda do you want
35:46to unmute yeah I guess they can also pay
35:49for interviews if it's a public sized
35:52case they can pay for interviews with
35:54interviewers who are sympathetic to the
35:56victim public ize the case in the
35:58victims oh no um the accusers no wait
36:02who is the person um the person who
36:05is allegedly committed the crime they
36:09can make them more sympathetic in the
36:12media which also influences how the jury
36:15and the judge looks at them
36:19yeah uh and then Chris say dedicate the
36:23time need to fight all parts of the bail
36:25procedure make better recommendations
36:27for agreements guil please y uh all of
36:29this is really good so good that people
36:31have a lot of ideas can I have the next
36:33slide
36:34then
36:37um cool uh so I think people went
36:40through most of what we actually came up
36:42with probably even more um so just to go
36:44through it uh obviously quicker because
36:46you've already talked so um I think the
36:48first thing we had is kinds of
36:49procedural advice so for example the
36:52fact that a very good lawyer can spend
36:53as people pointed out more time with you
36:56that can they can spend with repair in
36:57you and for example protecting you from
37:00uh making mistakes like self different
37:02kinds of self-incrimination for example
37:04during testimonies um it's also things
37:06like looking into evidence um I think we
37:09we've talked about the uh like a lot of
37:11people mention this about precedence and
37:12looking into uh previous cases uh this
37:16is definitely true uh we have a case
37:18study that we uh found about um that
37:21illustrates this uh quite nicely um so
37:24in the UK there used to be a uh shaken
37:28baby syndrome which was a thing that did
37:30happen to babies and there was a study
37:34and research that was uh fairly
37:36respected that was that said that this
37:37is something that is a fault of uh the
37:40parents of the mother of that baby
37:42meaning that that tended to be a very
37:43formulaic response in Trials to that
37:46case when the shaken baby syndrome
37:48happened it very formulaically uh always
37:51ended with the mother being convicted
37:53because it was just said that this is
37:54something that the mother causes this
37:56changed at the point when this happened
37:59to someone very very wealthy where a
38:01very very wealthy woman was able to get
38:03good lawyers who were able to pay
38:06independent researchers who went again
38:08through those studies and were able to
38:10establish that in fact this is not
38:12something that is Fault of the mother in
38:14every case and making it significantly
38:16more doubtful what this meant is that
38:18this changed and the cases were no
38:20longer senen as really formula and there
38:23needed to be much more evidence
38:24established uh in future cases so this a
38:28proves what we were talking about I why
38:30when you are wealthy you are more likely
38:32to have people who are able to do things
38:34like pay researches and just change a
38:37otherwise very Pro like um very rigid
38:40outcome but I think B reason why this
38:43can be uh way this can be used is you
38:45can prove trickle down effects I
38:47explaining why even if you are not
38:49wealthy the fact that wealthy people can
38:51pay for lawyers can somewhat benefit you
38:54meaning that like after this wealthy
38:56woman was was able able to pay the
38:58researchers um even people who were not
39:00as wealthy but went to court for the
39:03same reason still benefited it from
39:06setting the presedent and for the fact
39:07that they were not immediately convicted
39:09as a result of the new study being
39:11established so this is a way that you
39:13can like point out like look rich people
39:14they actually helped tickle down uh that
39:16my stuff um thirdly people talked about
39:19it the Charisma specific KN how like for
39:22example when it comes to the the um uh
39:25questioning Witnesses etc etc uh and
39:28obviously the abilities to find
39:29different technicalities Loop holes in
39:31law which requires Aid time and
39:33resources again people pointed out you
39:35can pay them by hour they can spend a
39:36lot of time going through it or like
39:39specialist knowledge um that obviously
39:41uh you might have to be willing to pay
39:44for someone who has some sort of
39:46specific knowledge that is uh not very
39:48common meaning that you need to pay more
39:49to get that particular person cool um so
39:52yeah well done everyone that was uh I
39:54think everyone had a quite good idea on
39:56this so um the claim that we would make
40:02in terms of to kind of say balance this
40:05out and being able to have a response um
40:07is to point out that it is whilst
40:09obviously wealthy people can get have
40:13the capacity to get these really good
40:14lawyers think we can also point out that
40:16it is not just wealthy people who can
40:19get them i. even non-wealthy people
40:20might be able to get a good lawyer um
40:23this is for two reasons I think a uh you
40:25can point out that there are lawyers who
40:27who do pro bono cases um we gave two
40:30reasons that you can give as to why they
40:32have the incentive to do it uh I think
40:34there's one that is something that
40:35doesn't really sell in debitel and it's
40:37just that not everyone is a lizard and
40:39sometimes people just do things because
40:41they are not awful people but if you
40:43want to be more cynical and more debate
40:45lendy um then you might say things like
40:47often when people go into criminal law
40:50they have a conception of themselves as
40:52someone who is going to be a good person
40:54someone who's going to be like fighting
40:56against Crime and prot in innocent
40:58people blah blah all these things given
41:00that like sooner or later you are
41:02probably going to and especially if you
41:03are a really good lawyer who's getting a
41:05lot of money you probably diverted from
41:07that truck and started to focus a lot on
41:10the sort of financial benefit for
41:11yourself meaning that because you still
41:13want to confirm the conception that you
41:15have of yourself as a good person and
41:18alleviate the kind of guilt that you
41:19probably have you are likely to be doing
41:22things like taking pro bono cases uh in
41:24order to to uh to to get that guilt
41:28Aviation uh but secondly also uh for
41:30example if if you are a minority lawyer
41:33you might have a personal experience uh
41:35you might be more empathetic to
41:38individuals who are for the from the
41:39same background who are poor and like
41:42given that you know that they often have
41:44the sort of uh like there is often bias
41:47against them meaning like they need
41:49someone and good lawyer that is able to
41:50protect them that for that reason you
41:52also might have an incentive to do it
41:54and obviously there are also Charities
41:56that uh want to Pro provide legal advice
41:58etc etc so you can point out that uh for
42:01example I think this ma is for the
42:02motion before about replacing all
42:04private Royals with of lawyers uh with
42:07uh State employed lawyers you might
42:08point out that this can also be on
42:10opposition you can point out this is
42:12this can be bad for poor people and
42:14minorities because you're also taking
42:16away the opportunity to take get for
42:18example the pro boner lawyers from them
42:21um as a result of that um the last thing
42:24uh in in terms of lawyers is talking
42:26about the role of identity um
42:29so uh again there is sometimes motions
42:32that have to do with individuals being
42:35represented by um someone who is from
42:37the same background or different
42:39background uh so explaining why is it
42:42important to be able to pick a lawyer or
42:44have a lawyer who comes from a similar
42:46background uh two reasons that you can
42:49give as to why that would be a good
42:50thing I think the first one is just
42:53pointing out the problem that that often
42:54exists with confirmation bias or the of
42:57empathy that someone from a majority
42:59group might have towards the minority
43:02client uh that is not that you going to
43:04be treating your client as if they are
43:06guilty but it's more like because you
43:09have that pre-existing prejudices and
43:11pre-existing stigma you might just like
43:14subconsciously believe that there is
43:16less likelihood of you being successful
43:19in trying to find the evidence that
43:21protect your client because you kind of
43:23do not believe that you're going to be
43:25successful you are less likely to be did
43:27dedicating enough time you less likely
43:29to commit actually to protecting your
43:31client properly for that reason there is
43:33often a problem with these individuals
43:35not being um um not being represented
43:38properly or being suggested for example
43:39a ple deal uh even though they shouldn't
43:42be um the second thing and that's more
43:44from the side of the individual who is
43:46Accused uh the fact that you have trust
43:49towards your lawyer uh like again you
43:50can do the analysis about why if you are
43:52a minority person you may be less likely
43:55to uh have bad Rel relationship with
43:58members of the majority because maybe
44:00you had like obviously you probably
44:01experienced some level of of say racism
44:04um because you are if you are more
44:07likely to trust the lawyer because they
44:08come from the same background you are
44:10more likely to a follow their advice and
44:12give it a explain that is helpful if the
44:14if you are able to uh follow their
44:17follow their advice for example how you
44:19meant to behave in the testimony etc etc
44:22um if you are more likely to do it then
44:23obviously the outcome for you is going
44:25to be better or you are more like to for
44:27example provide them information that
44:29that lawyer might need in um in
44:31representing you uh you may be less
44:33likely to do it if you don't trust the
44:35lawyer um and you think they're going to
44:37throw you under the bus so for that
44:39reason uh this is these are two ways in
44:41which you can uh you can explain why it
44:43is important to have some sort of uh
44:45identity similarity between the lawyers
44:48and the and the those who are accused
44:51cool uh can I have a next slide
44:57nice okay um so uh next one is in terms
45:01of Judges again uh similarly as before
45:05talking about bias so uh very common
45:08argument that you're going to be hearing
45:10all the time uh when it comes to judges
45:13is explaining uh why they are biased in
45:16two steps the first one what is the
45:18likely background that judges have um so
45:20the very typical phrase of them being
45:22likely old white men uh I think it is
45:25important that you are able to actually
45:27justify as to why that is likely um we
45:29gave three reasons the first one is just
45:32generally you often need a privilege
45:34background to be able to study law it
45:36tends to be expensive B uh to be able to
45:39become a judge you probably need to be
45:40someone who's already respected within
45:42the profession in so far as the peers
45:44are likely to be old white men or white
45:47men they are more likely to be
45:49respecting someone who looks like them
45:51um so again there's the selection uh
45:53bias from other people but thirdly also
45:56self- selection again if most of the
45:58people that you see as judges are old
46:00white men if you are someone from
46:02Minority background you are less likely
46:04to put yourself forward or think of that
46:06as like your potential career so even
46:08like your self you self select against
46:11that uh in the first place um so those
46:14are the three reasons that we think is
46:15are quite straightforward that you are
46:17able to give as a reason why that like
46:19why their backgrounds likely to be the
46:20old white man um two ways that you can
46:23question it um I think the first one is
46:26to point out out that old white men
46:28doesn't mean that they are necessarily
46:30horrible conservative people um so often
46:32you can point out that the education
46:34often leads to adopting a more liberal
46:36mindset so even if these people are old
46:38white men it doesn't mean that they're
46:39are going to be always like biased
46:41conservative and terrible uh I think the
46:43second way is to question whether there
46:45are going to be old white men in the
46:47first place pointing out that for
46:48example there are often University
46:50quotas that exist there's often pressure
46:52from social movements uh to diversifying
46:55the profession because people are aware
46:57that there is a problem meaning that
46:59there's likely to be a trend of
47:00diversifying that sort of um depression
47:03in the future um second claim then that
47:06you want to make is that this background
47:08does affect the decision- making of that
47:10judge um so the claim you want to make
47:13is to sayate that there is probably an
47:16empathy or increased empathy that you
47:18have towards someone who looks more like
47:20you so um the I think the common
47:24response is that the judge actually
47:26doesn't make any subjective
47:27considerations so it doesn't really
47:29matter you can point out that that is
47:31actually a subjective consideration the
47:33judge makes about the culpability of the
47:36of uh the perpetrator so there is a
47:40difference whether the judge is going to
47:42be perceiving you as someone who just
47:44made a mistake or someone who was
47:46actually just evil and is predisposed to
47:48be bad so obviously if you are an old
47:51white man and you see a nice looking
47:54white guy preppy boy you are more like
47:57ly to believe that they just made a
47:58mistake than if it's someone who is a
48:00member of minority where because of your
48:02prejudices you are more likely to
48:03believe that they just are inherently
48:05violent or something of that sort so
48:07this is how the background can play into
48:10uh the decision-making and how the bias
48:12can can can can can happen um responding
48:16to this again um if you are on the
48:18opposite side and you need to try to say
48:21that this is not as bad um you can point
48:23out that there is bunch of checks on
48:25behavior of Judges uh for example things
48:28like sentencing guidelines that are
48:29often quite rigid things like standards
48:32by which evidence is considered in court
48:34or thirdly you often do have external
48:37pressure for example by social movements
48:39for example by liberal media um uh
48:42especially if the trials is something
48:43that is public um very often you just do
48:46have pressure uh against some sort of
48:48very biased decisions being made um so
48:51that even if the judges could have
48:53Tendencies to be biased that are there
48:56are checks and B es to prevent say the
48:58worst uh worst kinds of behavior cool um
49:01hopefully that's all clear um in which
49:03case I can move on to the next
49:07slide yeah okay um so moving on from
49:09trials to the last two things uh that is
49:12talking about uh the prison system and
49:14then the life after prison um so two
49:18things that we want to talk about uh
49:20when it comes to prison system I think
49:22the first one is just the analysis about
49:24why prisons are bad um this might sound
49:26very intuitive but uh actually in a
49:29debate that we were quite recently one
49:31of the clashes was just talking about
49:32why prisons are really bad or if prisons
49:35are not so bad so often you want to
49:38characterize why prisons are so bad uh
49:40especially if you want to talk about for
49:41example why rehabilitation in prisons is
49:44unlikely if you want to talk about uh
49:46proportionality of punishment um Etc um
49:51so um why are prisons bad uh couple of
49:55reasons the first one is things like
49:57violence from other inmates or also
49:59guards uh to the fact that you often
50:03have issues of overcrowding that leads
50:05to things like bad sanitation Etc the
50:07fact that you often have lack of
50:09opportunities for education or for work
50:11when you are in prison and if you do
50:12have work it's very often very poorly
50:15paid or the fact that when you go into
50:18prison you often come into contact with
50:19criminal networks this is not just for
50:22people who are involved in those
50:23networks previously but you can also
50:25point out that even if you someone who
50:27just made a mistake were previously very
50:30innocent now they are more likely to get
50:32involved with criminal networks for
50:33broadly two reasons I think the first
50:35one is because often to ensure self-
50:37protection you need to find a group that
50:39you can get involved with meaning that
50:41you often have to join other like
50:43criminal networks in order to protect
50:45your yourself and B Because often
50:47criminal networks do have an incentive
50:49to recruit in prisons uh for example uh
50:52in Latin America often the um often
50:57say guns in prisons uh have an incentive
51:00to recruit people who come there because
51:02they know that once these people are
51:03going to leave prison they're going to
51:05be facing a lot of stigma they're
51:06probably not going to be able to find a
51:07job so they are the ideal people that
51:10then can uh afterwards work for the gang
51:13um so there is active recruitment
51:15happening with impr prisons so there you
51:17can this is a claim that you can make if
51:19you want to explain why Rehabilitation
51:21is not only unlikely in fact you are
51:23more likely to be making people worse
51:26than they were before and more likely to
51:27recommit a crime than they were before
51:30um so I think the more the important
51:33claim that you need to also make to
51:35support what we just said about why pris
51:37are bad is why it is hard to improve any
51:40of these things uh because it's easy to
51:43say okay it's bad but like we can you
51:44know make some reforms put in some money
51:47etc etc so if you want to make Claim
51:49about why it this hard to overcome these
51:51problems I think there is couple the
51:53first one is in terms of political
51:55capital so you can say that there is
51:58Extreme lack of political Capital when
51:59it comes to giving money to prisons or
52:02focusing on prisons and prisoners uh and
52:05that treatment this is for broadly three
52:07reasons the first one is that is just
52:09not a approximate issue for most people
52:11again we said people don't think about
52:13that they're going to go to prison uh so
52:16usually if you are voting you're
52:18probably going to be voting for things
52:19like taxes that are obviously going to
52:21affect you um rather than for things
52:24like presents because you don't think
52:25there's going to be something think that
52:26is going to be important in your life
52:28anytime soon second is just the
52:30perception of criminals as evil people
52:32um so if most people think that
52:33criminals deserve bad treatment you do
52:35not have the incentive to vote for
52:38policies that can improve their lives in
52:40fact you are more likely to backlash
52:42against those policies so um you are
52:45more likely to claim that the government
52:47is just wasting money on someone who
52:48doesn't deserve it meaning that
52:50governments are less likely to be making
52:51these policies because they're just
52:53scared of the population uh being angry
52:55as a result and thirdly there are
52:57obviously also Lobby groups for example
52:59victim Lobby groups or uh in the US
53:02specifically uh the prison industrial
53:04complex um that uh does have a clear
53:08incentive to to keep pres uh existing
53:11keep presence big uh and and not
53:13necessarily improve them at all so uh
53:16the impact of this is that you likely
53:18have lack of
53:19resources um meaning that you can't buy
53:23helpful technology often the way to
53:25improve prisons is to in install some
53:26sort of Technology um that can help uh
53:29if you do not have money you can't
53:31obviously do it B you can't get guards
53:34uh so you more likely to have the all
53:36the violence that we talked about you
53:38can't get more space again which means
53:40that you keep those prisons overcrowded
53:43um so this is one way that you can
53:45explain why prisons are bad and our
53:46likely to stay bad second thing is that
53:49there's often a lack of information uh
53:51and the things that you need to know in
53:54order to improve presence are often not
53:56collected so for example in the UK um
54:00there was for a very long time no
54:02information at all collected on terms of
54:04free offense rates so it was genuinely
54:06unclear to what what what kind of things
54:08you should be investing in to um to to
54:11improve those rates or for example in
54:14Latin American prisons uh there was
54:16often a problem with human rights groups
54:18not being able to access them so again
54:20there was massive lack of knowledge
54:23about what's happening inside of those
54:25prisons because that was just no
54:27information being collected uh but B
54:30also uh when it comes to prisoners
54:32experiences themselves often they are
54:34not listened to uh again because a
54:38politicians don't listen to prisoners
54:40because they often don't vote uh B media
54:43often don't have the incentive to say
54:45interview or give stories about
54:46prisoners again because they are
54:48perceived to be just evil people um so
54:51for that reason uh that doesn't occur uh
54:54because of that you a don't have the
54:56information of what what you should be
54:58changing but B you also can't hold
55:00people accountable so if there are some
55:02sort of human rights violations in
55:04prisons and the treatment is really bad
55:07again you can't hold people accountable
55:08because you do not know about it um and
55:11uh lastly there's often also practical
55:13concerns so for example because people
55:16are often moving prisons um even if you
55:19have some nice training programs or
55:21education programs it is just hard to
55:23complete them if they are being moved
55:25from one prison to another um like every
55:27year or two um so all of those things Al
55:30together uh mean that presence tends to
55:33be quite bad places and this is a way
55:35that you can explain it in a debate and
55:37explain why it is hard to reform them um
55:41in uh if a team tries to suggest it cool
55:45um unless there any questions then we
55:46can move to the next bit cool so the
55:49last bit is in terms of uh life after
55:52prison so again uh if people want to
55:54think about it before I'm going to list
55:56you a big list again so um what do
55:59people think that are the obstacles that
56:01there are to Rehabilitation so why is it
56:03that when people leave prison they are
56:05unlikely to be able to successfully
56:08integrate yeah um just unmute yourselves
56:12if you want to speak they're they're
56:14less likely to get a job because they
56:16have a criminal record um they're L more
56:19likely to be allra sides with their
56:21family members friends um the society
56:26MH yeah very
56:28good uh yeah Chris says serious social
56:32stigma against convicts Miss on CV not
56:35used to work mix exper Mis experience
56:38capping career yeah that is definitely
56:40true and involvement with criminals
56:42while while in prison yeah that links
56:44back to the the uh criminal networks
56:47that I talked about in uh a bit before
56:49yeah um anything anything else people
56:50can think about
57:05now uh when you don't have a job it's
57:07very difficult to get a Social Circle to
57:09regain a support system which will help
57:11steer them away from crime
57:14yeah uh at says same crime networks for
57:18example family and friends mhm
57:27okay uh oh yeah I missed this one that
57:29AA said you believe you've already Ser
57:31served your
57:32punishment yeah U that can also be a
57:36psychological reasoning
57:39yeah okay going to
57:43give just a few seconds more if people
57:45want to type anything that wasn't said
57:50yet cool okay otherwise uh we can just
57:55move
57:58yeah uh so again um oh yeah Chris says
58:02now resent the state which is definitely
58:05a a good one as well uh so uh again uh
58:09people did touch on most of this so
58:12again uh the fact that you it's hard to
58:14find a job um three reasons for this
58:17that people did mention things like
58:18stigma the fact that gaps in CV or
58:20sometimes there's a background check
58:23that you need to do before uh getting a
58:25job that may makes it hard to get some
58:27kinds of jobs the fact that you uh did
58:30learn some behaviors in prison um that
58:33might not work particularly well in the
58:36real world now um lack of capital um so
58:40uh this is related to um what ATA said
58:44about going back to same crime networks
58:46like family and friends or for example
58:48if you committed the crime as a result
58:50of structural poverty obviously in so
58:52far as you your economic situation has
58:55unlikely improved moved in prison uh the
58:58same problems are likely going to
58:59persist even after you leave it um the
59:02fact that you lose your relationships if
59:03your friends with your family um this is
59:06because either you might just be
59:07condemned by them and then you might
59:09have nowhere to come back or um the fact
59:12that you didn't see your family or your
59:14friends for 10 years or did see them
59:17very very um for very short amount of
59:20time uh not very regularly it means that
59:23your relationship just very likely
59:25disinte grades um so you do not are
59:28you're not going to have the support
59:29network that you need and four uh
59:31fifthly um you also um unlikely to have
59:35a community that understands your
59:36experience um so again you are going to
59:39come out of an experience that was
59:41something that people just do not
59:43understand they never live through it
59:45they often have the perception that you
59:46are just a bad person no one can relate
59:48to you and what you went through when
59:49you were in prison meaning that you are
59:52probably going to feel quite lonely in
59:54the world that you are now um so for all
59:56those reasons you are just highly
59:58unlikely to be able to reintegrate
1:00:01without proper support and uh likely to
1:00:05reoffend as a result so again all of
1:00:07this is very helpful if you want to
1:00:09explain why Rehabilitation or prisons
1:00:11are not really good for
1:00:12rehabilitation uh or explain why it is
1:00:14really massively necessary to have
1:00:16support programs for uh for um convicts
1:00:19afterwards um I think two extra impacts
1:00:22that you can um you can derive from this
1:00:26the first one is to point out that there
1:00:28is a principled harm on extra punishment
1:00:30so if he do believe and this is
1:00:32generally gets somewhat uncontested uh
1:00:35that the punishment should be
1:00:36proportional to the crime if we believe
1:00:39that the uh criminal already got that
1:00:42punishment as a result of staying in
1:00:44prison you can point out that in fact
1:00:47they are suffering disproportionately
1:00:49because they are being constant like
1:00:51consistently punished even long after
1:00:53they leave prison so it's actually not a
1:00:56proportionate punishment um and secondly
1:00:58you can also point out that obviously
1:01:00all of these things occur
1:01:02disproportionately uh across
1:01:03socioeconomic and ethnic lines so um all
1:01:06of this massively exacerbates if you are
1:01:09someone who is from a poor background or
1:01:11from an ethnic minority um as a result
1:01:14uh cool uh I had an example of a motion
1:01:18where uh this is this was used that was
1:01:20quite recent um and uh where why it is
1:01:24useful to have the bunch of reasons and
1:01:26bunch of mechanisms why these obstacles
1:01:28to rehabilitations exist so at Euros uh
1:01:31there was a motion that was given the
1:01:33technology this house of eras society's
1:01:35memory and evidence of the criminal past
1:01:37of former convicts after their release
1:01:39from prison so these reasons that we
1:01:42just listed were quite useful in
1:01:44debating that motion because obviously
1:01:46um gol teams among other things
1:01:48obviously um could claim things like why
1:01:52the stigma is something that is very
1:01:54very problematic and why removing that
1:01:56stigma as a result of that policy would
1:01:58help individuals to be able to
1:02:00reintegrate uh when on opposition um we
1:02:04said look the lot of the things don't
1:02:06have to do anything with the stigma it's
1:02:08about the things like gaps in CV the
1:02:10fact that you just don't have money this
1:02:12the policy is not solving that in fact
1:02:14it's making it worse because now you do
1:02:16not know who the who was and wasn't a
1:02:18criminal so you can't have the support
1:02:20networks or like support policies like
1:02:22housing policies that you would need um
1:02:26um etc etc um so again it obviously
1:02:29among other things so it is useful to
1:02:32have bunch of different mechanisms and
1:02:34think of how uh the motion relates to um
1:02:37different kinds of them cool um in which
1:02:41case uh they should be everything we
1:02:44have on the slides so if people have any
1:02:47questions that are related to anything I
1:02:49just talked about anything ree talked
1:02:51about before or anything in general
1:02:53about criminal justice you can put it in
1:02:56the chat now and we can talk about it
1:02:58while done getting the top
1:03:23ready um how would you argue that a
1:03:27current law should for example not be a
1:03:29law or should be not an act should not
1:03:32be illegal like for example marijuana
1:03:36was illegal in couple of United like
1:03:38states in the United States but now it's
1:03:41not illegal like a lot of drugs used to
1:03:43be legal but now they're more changing
1:03:45towards Rehabilitation and not
1:03:47punishment for taking drugs so how would
1:03:50you argue that another law is for
1:03:54example um more targeting ethnic
1:03:57communities and should not be actually
1:04:06illegal um I think that's going to
1:04:08depend very much on the particular law
1:04:10that you're talking about um I and it's
1:04:13probably like a complete answer to this
1:04:16might require more time than we have as
1:04:18to what the principal justifications for
1:04:20having laws in general are in general
1:04:22though if you're in a debate and you
1:04:23need to establish that something ought
1:04:25not be law it is usually the case
1:04:27assuming there are no principled
1:04:28arguments being made in that round that
1:04:30one can argue that having that law is
1:04:33something that doesn't actually lead to
1:04:35like people being better off I suppose
1:04:38or positive utility based outcomes um
1:04:41obviously then that's something that's
1:04:42going to depend on the particular law
1:04:43you're talking about I you need to be
1:04:45able to make
1:04:46arguments um for why it is that law
1:04:50might or might not lead to good outcomes
1:04:52and that's something you can't do uh
1:04:55without knowing what the particular law
1:04:56is and so I can't give a more detailed
1:04:59answer to that because that's going to
1:05:00be very debate dependent I
1:05:05think thank
1:05:11you um are there any other
1:05:14questions otherwise I think the tab oh
1:05:17the tab is ready should be ready
1:05:20wonderful uh I can screen go ahead and
1:05:23screen share that then give me one
1:05:25second second

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Law & Criminal Justice - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 4 (Term 2) by Manchester Debating Union, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 12,224 words across 1,729 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.