homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 10:17 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Indigent Defense Reform
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
Okay, so there's this case to reform the Indigent Defense System. Basically, back in 2013 we had the governmental sequestration and many programs lost funding. One of those programs was the Indigent Defense System. The Affirmative mandates an increase of funding of $83 million (I think). There is a ton of evidence saying that all this program needs is a little more money and then it will be fine. There is also a lot of evidence saying that because of lack of funds, the program is absolutely failing and not able to fulfill it's job of protecting poor clients who can't afford a lawyer.

Thoughts for the Negative?

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 4:35 am
Posts: 34
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frequently in front of a computer
Where are they getting the money from?

_________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." —Milton Friedman

Currently geeking out about econ and math at the University of Wisconsin-Madison


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:27 am
Posts: 103
Home Schooled: Yes
IDK... Probably just expanding the budget.

_________________
Alec Light

2010-11 |R8| Light/Light
2011-12 |R8| Folkert/Light
2012-13 |R8| Folkert/Light
2013-14 |R8| Folkert/Light
2014-15 |R8| Childs/Light
2015-16 |R8| Light/Toman


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:37 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Is funding the only reform the case would make?

_________________
Hannah David (R5)
2010-2011 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2011-2012 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2012-2013 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2013-2014 | David/Zitter (Q'd to Nats)
2014-2015 | David/Zitter (6th at Nats)

2015-2016 | David/David


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2016 2:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 4:35 am
Posts: 34
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frequently in front of a computer
So here's the biggest argument against this case: the sequester cuts are no more.

Administrative Office of the US Courts wrote:
The Defender Services account received a 5.9 percent appropriations increase, sufficient to fund all program requirements, including the ability to backfill most of the 400 positions federal defender offices lost in FY 2013 due to sequestration, and restore, beginning in September 2013, the panel attorney hourly rates that were temporarily reduced as an emergency measure.


See the 2014 Annual Report: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-repo ... eport-2014

Also there's a good bit of evidence out there about how awesome federal defenders are.

_________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." —Milton Friedman

Currently geeking out about econ and math at the University of Wisconsin-Madison


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:37 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Did they have a response for that? I'm trying to figure out how people are still running the case with that kind of inherency evidence out there... :?

_________________
Hannah David (R5)
2010-2011 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2011-2012 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2012-2013 | LD (Q'd to Nats)
2013-2014 | David/Zitter (Q'd to Nats)
2014-2015 | David/Zitter (6th at Nats)

2015-2016 | David/David


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 4:35 am
Posts: 34
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frequently in front of a computer
Kiwi wrote:
Did they have a response for that? I'm trying to figure out how people are still running the case with that kind of inherency evidence out there... :?


The one team I have seen it used against, no they had absolutely no response other than obvious bewilderment.

_________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." —Milton Friedman

Currently geeking out about econ and math at the University of Wisconsin-Madison


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 649
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
MeAndMyBriefcase wrote:
Kiwi wrote:
Did they have a response for that? I'm trying to figure out how people are still running the case with that kind of inherency evidence out there... :?


The one team I have seen it used against, no they had absolutely no response other than obvious bewilderment.

From my understanding the funding to the federal system was cut in 2013, partially restored, and then cut again in 2014 and 2016. Some statistic out there says they are still underfunded by some $94-5 million. The round that you are referencing was a bit out of hand and aft has better responses than were put up at the time.
Also, funding isn't the only prong of the case. Most good teams will run a structural reform to the system (removing from or placing under the AO I think, I'm not sure), it is definitely still an issue (though I tend to think that funding is the least convincing prong of the case).

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Voice of Reason wrote:
From my understanding the funding to the federal system was cut in 2013, partially restored, and then cut again in 2014 and 2016. Some statistic out there says they are still underfunded by some $94-5 million. The round that you are referencing was a bit out of hand and aft has better responses than were put up at the time.
Also, funding isn't the only prong of the case. Most good teams will run a structural reform to the system (removing from or placing under the AO I think, I'm not sure), it is definitely still an issue (though I tend to think that funding is the least convincing prong of the case).

I really do not get this case.

First of all, I've found pretty solid evidence that the 2013 cuts were completely restored, and that the budget was increased, not cut, in 2014-2016. Where is this evidence that it was cut again?

Also, where one earth is this 95 million statistic? I have literally searched for it for over an hour. It just does not seem to be on the dumb internet. :P Does anyone know the source of this statistic?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited