Deciding How to Defend Discussion Topics

¶ … subscribe to any of these theories about punishment.

I have a different one, which is this: slavery never really went away -- prisons are the new slave plantations and the blacks that are imprisoned are put there so that they can make parts for Nike and Apple for slave wages and be perpetually recycled back into the system because of the high rates of recidivism that the prison farm systems know will occur (because the ex-cons can't pay their prison bills (yes, they have prison bills upon leaving -- they actually have to pay for their own incarceration) because they haven't earned anything from their corporate prison slave plantation masters).

The system is set up to exploit black labor -- just like as of old (Benns, 2015). I think Tom is appealing in the wrong manner. Instead of appealing on the "void for vagueness" doctrine, Tom should appeal simply because he did not know that there was a daycare next door. Indeed, how is he supposed to know? The law, like many U.S. laws, is written and passed without any thought of how it might apply in the real world.

Is a convicted sex offender supposed to get on Google Maps and look up parks, daycares, pools and schools before he goes anywhere? How can he ever go anywhere at all considering that these places are virtually everywhere? Tom should appeal based on the law being idiotic. Unfortunately he would lose, because as Thurgood Marshall pointed out, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws" (New York State Bd. Of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 2008).

Unit 2 Discussion Did you know the pill would knock you out the way it did? No. Then you are not responsible for what happened? You did not act against your own self-interest and the interest of others? No. Then there can be no Actus Reus. However -- arguing for Actus Reus -- she should have known the effect of the pill. Her ignorance was the result of negligence on her part, thus she is still responsible. Thus, there is Actus Reus (Lehman, Phelps, 2008).

Unit 3 Discussion The defendant was armed and thus gave the impression of one who was prepared to cause physical, bodily harm. Thus, in spite of whatever in his mind said he did not intend to cause harm, his actions obviously dictated that he was prepared to do so. Thus the conviction was upheld. Unit 4 Discussion Mistake of Fact should work as a defense because the defendant never had mens rea. He had no intent to break the law of Fun Land and so should not stand punishment.

This is similar to having no Actus Reus, if the facts were changed slightly. Unit 5 Discussion I agree with this balance because people should be viewed as innocent until proven guilty. Today, it feels as it is exactly the opposite. Once an accusation is made, people view the defendant as guilty until proven innocent, but that is not how it should be according to the Bill of Rights and according to the law of basic human decency and respect.

People should not be making inadequately formed judgments of others before the evidence is in -- that's common sense. Therefore, if I were to make any changes I would advocate for a complete return to this Bill of Rights mentality and insist that media reporters and public opinionists not shape public opinion in a damning way before the facts are in. Unit 6 Discussion I would argue against this Bill since it is impossible to distinguish a Bugs Bunny from a regular bunny.

Such a law just invites trouble and all manner of contention -- and laws should work to ease tension, not create it. A counter-argument might be that, but, yes the Bugs Bunny must be protected therefore we need this law. I would contend that if the lawmaker can identify correctly.