DFKL - Higherarchy of Rights AC - VBI 2010

DFKL - Higherarchy of Rights AC - VBI 2010 - Delta Force K...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Delta Force K Lab Hierarchy of Rights AC Alex Rosengarten 1/8 Hierarchy of Rights AC Hierarchy of Rights AC. ............................................................................................................................ 1 Affirmative Constructive. .......................................................................................................................... 2 Extensions. ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Framework. ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Delta Force K Lab Hierarchy of Rights AC Alex Rosengarten 2/8 Affirmative Constructive I affirm, Resolved: “In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.” Since ought only implies that the resolution is normative, the necessary evaluative term of the resolution must be justice. Justice is the vital adjective for the penal system in the United States—it specifies that the ultimate end of the system is to meet normative standards of justice rather than achieve any other goal. We’re not debating about the criminal conditioning system, rather the criminal justice system. Justice is most vaguely defined giving each their due. This presupposes a hierarchy of rights claims. Both these concepts are best understood by examining the [power relation] [interaction] between the individual and the state: [ slow ] Before anything else, individuals have negative rights claims, which are guarantees against violations of liberty. The primary function of the state is to add legitimacy to these negative rights claims in political society. The state does this by the threat of coercion against violators of negative rights claims, that being punishment. The need for the threat of coercion against criminals creates a duty or obligation for the state to punish. This analysis also explains why protecting negative rights claims precede fulfilling obligations – it’s because obligations are created as a means to ensure the protection of said negative rights claims. Moreover, the construction of the state indicates a third tier of the hierarchy: positive obligations. The implicit positive obligation of the state is to create a desirable or attractive society. States need to meet this positive obligation for 2 reasons: First , if there’s nothing attractive about entering political society, then the theoretical initial construction of the state becomes impossible. Second , if political society is not desirable after the initial construction of the state, then there is nothing that motivates people to participate in political society, which also threatens the legitimacy of the state. Popular sovereignty is meaningless if there are no people. Thus, the positive obligation for desirability does function in a non- consequential expression of rights, but only if it’s prioritized after the first two tiers. And that crazy equilibrium of rights is justice. [
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/21/2011 for the course ECONOMICS 302 taught by Professor Wayne during the Spring '11 term at Wayne State University.

Page1 / 8

DFKL - Higherarchy of Rights AC - VBI 2010 - Delta Force K...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online