9spaceking (PRO)My argument is simple. Some times police is not enough to resolve crimes. Various rewards would encourage people to help the taskforce to solve crimes. It's as easy as that.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-07 06:18:17
| Speak Round
Debatemaster101 (CON)Police shouldn't offer rewards for trying to solve crimes. For it is a simple fact that if police offer rewards, such as money, to help solve crimes people would be likely to do whatever it takes to get the money. A prime example of this is planting evidence that leads to real crime doer not being caught. There is also the fact that some people don't know what they are doing. If they were doing an investigation and one of the helpers didn't know what to do they could unknowingly tamper with evidence. Even worse if it is something serious the crime doer could act like "he" wanted to help to get the reward but in reality, was in fact not really helping and was getting an inside feel of the case, therefore, throwing the investigation off.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-09 13:15:09
| Speak Round9spaceking: do you have any evidence that people will actually tamper with evidence?Debatemaster101: I do actually and here is the link. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/tampering-with-evidence.htmlDebatemaster101: 9spaceking do you have any evidence to back up your argument?9spaceking: certainly. https://www.lnlegal.com/blog/2014/june/offering-rewards-to-solve-crimes-does-it-really-/9spaceking: " The suspect's own sister-in-law and brother ultimately tipped off the FBI to his identity based off his writing style and beliefs in his "manifesto" the agency had published during their investigation and collected the reward."9spaceking: "Offering a reward may serve to reignite community interest in a crime, which can prove helpful if detectives have run out of leads."9spaceking: there is also https://www.denverpost.com/2013/11/07/reward-money-can-expedite-crime-solving-and-sometimes-cause-headaches/9spaceking: 2003 — $5,400 on 16 cases 2004 — $8,000 on 26 cases 2005 — $20,000 on 37 cases 2006 — $25,500 on 51 cases 2007 — $29,400 on 60 cases 2008 — $15,600 on 28 cases 2009 — $30,500 on 66 cases 2010 — $45,450 on 91 cases 2011 — $51,250 on 81 cases 2012 — $89,000 on 49 cases 2013 — $37,200 on 117 cases9spaceking: how common is this tampering with evidence when rewards are offered?Return To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking (PRO)in truth it's uncertain just how common this tampering with evidence is, and Con's source only says it can happen, not that it will happen and is inherently caused by the offering of rewards.
I extend the anecdotes offered in the cross-examination: Indeed, most people who solve the crimes don't even claim the money, so the data isn't even all there is! Not to mention, with the idea of a monetary benefit, skilled investigators and experts may be more likely to participate and use their valuable time to solve the crime.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-14 14:55:04
| Speak RoundDebatemaster101 (CON)Why would you offer a reward to such as in to solve a crime? You shouldn't and most frankly you wouldn't. Money is hard to come by these days and why would you give it to a person who just happens to solve a crime, they could easily tamper with the evidence and frame someone. This would kill 2 birds with one stone. Such a fact would make it so that desperate people would do ANYTHING to get the money, this also applies to greedy people. Pro has no evidence. Pro, if the police can't solve it what makes you think a normal life citizen could.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-15 05:42:27
| Speak Round9spaceking: does your website actually list specific cases where people tampered with evidence due to cash offered?9spaceking: if no, then at least I still have some anecdotes standing with cases solved with people's helpReturn To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking (PRO)Con has listed zero actual events where people tampered with evidence. Not only so, most of the people who solve the crime do not claim the money, so not much money is used. My argument still stands.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-20 12:59:29
| Speak RoundDebatemaster101 (CON)Pro's argument is as little as two lines. Would you really entrust people with a mixed background or just plain bad to help with a crime and get paid for it? If you do these things the work of police will be even more utterly dysfunctional. As life already is what places or police forces would be able to give out free money for work? Think of all the ways it could screw the economy up and also how it can hurt people and society in general. So again I say we shouldn't give rewards to people who help solve crimes.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-23 16:06:25
| Speak RoundReturn To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking (PRO)the problem is that the police can have problems with crimes, especially with regards to US where police can be biased with racism and prejudice. With additional people involved, the inequality potentially produced goes down and hence the finance cost would still be worth it, even with no results. The procedure could at least be improved with people participating to try to solve the crime in different angles.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-29 04:10:33
| Speak RoundDebatemaster101 (CON)As pro says police can be biased and racist. What likelihood is that when there is a 10% discharge on all infrastructures? Pro list all ways cons can;t happen but just says that there is a big percent chance that people tamper with evidence. Ask yourself would you put your life in the hands of someone who just wants money and doesn't care about the case? If no then you are among the population that thinks police shouldn't let random people solve crimes and wouldn't give them rewards.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-01 17:03:53
| Speak RoundDebatemaster101: What happens when an unfledged citizen participates and cannot be accounted for?Return To Top | Speak Round
9spaceking (PRO)The problem is that the systematic racism is famous within the US. We could debate about this but most people agree that there is a problem with the police system and judging as a whole. Even Brookings.edu wrote an entire article on it (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2020/06/11/systemic-racism-and-america-today/). By having something other than race on the line, we potentially distract people from emotional biases to look at someone's face and judging them to be guilty. Con still has very little impact and evidence of people actually tampering with evidence.
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-07 04:02:44
| Speak RoundDebatemaster101 (CON)It isn't about the evidence it is about the risk. Has there ever been a police place that let random people help? Racism and biasing someone judged by their color of what they look like and if police are doing it they shouldn't be police officers. Racisms is wrong and so is letting random people help because they want to. Random people don't have any experience and could contaminate the evidence. Having random people do the work is wrong and could potentially put police officers out of a job. Who would protect us then pro?
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-07 05:45:41
| Speak RoundReturn To Top | Speak Round
Debatemaster101 (CON)People judge people daily and compare themselves to others. It is the same with racism, not everyone does it but a lot do. What evidence is there that police officer are racist? Has there ever been a time when a random person who knew nothing solved the case? No, I didn't think so. You are limiting substantial evidence with nothing to back it up. What is your defense Pro?
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-13 01:42:21
| Speak Round9spaceking (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2021-01-18 01:44:01
| Speak Round