Download pdf - 1NC vs Belle Raja

8/18/2019 1NC vs Belle Raja

1/24

Extra Topicality


2/24


3/24

Stan(ar(s:$ince they


4/24

T ) Su*stantial +A(( violation,


5/24

&Su*stantial- must *e at least . o! the entity##smallest we coul( $n(

0or(s 2hrases 34

5$ubstantial6 means 6o real worth and importance7 o considerable value7 valuable46 8e&uest to charitable institution, ma9ing 1/48 o e penditures in state, held e empt rom ta ation7such e penditures constituting 6substantial6 part o its activities 4 :a !ommission o 3hio v4 American ;umane ducation $oc4, 1, #" 3hioApp4 #4


6/24

'iolationThere are 144%444 2risoners in Solitary% which is 4 4 o! the6S 2opulation7o"an 815 (Ashley, 0niversity o ittsburgh $chool o ?aw, jurist4org, $eptember 1=th)

@0+%$: (http jurist4org) is a web'based legal news and real'time legal research service powered by a mostly'volunteer team o over BC part'time law student reporters, editors and Debdevelopers led by law pro essor 8ernard ;ibbitts at the 0niversity o ittsburgh $chool o ?aw in ittsburgh, ennsylvania, 0$A4

@0+%$: is produced as a public service or the continuing legal education o its readers and law student staEers, and uses the latest %nternet technology to trac9 important legal newsstories and materials and present them rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in a widely'accessible ormat4

The Association o $tate !orrectional Administrators ( ASCsA ) oGcial websiteH, in partnership with the Arthur ?iman ublic %nterest rogram at Iale ?aw $chool websiteH released press releaseH a report JFHDednesday estimate[es ing that !et"een 8#$### to 1##$### %risoners "ere in what correctionaloGcials call 6restrictive housing6 in "C1#4 :he survey defned solitary confnement as holding an inmate separate rom the general population or ""'"K hours a day or KC days or more4 :he groups emphasized the continued need

or prison oGcials to set time limits on the amount o time a prisoner can be held in solitary con&nement and creating a more ormal policy o 1sentencing an inmate to solitaryconfnement4

http://jurist.org/http://jurist.org/http://jurist.org/staff/#studentshttp://jurist.org/staff/#studentshttp://jurist.org/staff/#studentshttp://jurist.org/staff/#studentshttp://jurist.org/staff/#Hibbittshttp://jurist.org/staff/#Hibbittshttp://jurist.org/http://jurist.org/staff/#studentshttp://jurist.org/staff/#studentshttp://jurist.org/staff/#Hibbitts


7/24

Stan(ar(s1 9ri"ht line L our interpretation provides a clear distinction between

what is topical and what is not4


8/24

'otersTopicality is an A 2riori proce(ural issue% which means that*e!ore you evaluate the contents o! the a rmative plan% youevaluate whether it is topical% an( thus shoul( *e evaluate( on

the "roun(s o! e(ucation an( !airness


9/24

T ) Term o! art


10/24

&;omestic Surveillance- means the ac


11/24

about the issues4 :here ore, or the readerOs clarity, this article uses -domesticsurveillance” as a term o art4


12/24

'iolation:The a'rmati(e curtails the use of solitary con&nement in %risons$ "hichhas nothing to )o "ith information collection on foreign terror sus%ects.


13/24

Stan(ar(s:


14/24

?imits @ur (e$nition is *roa( enou"h to allow a Bexi*ility% *ut narrow enou"h to ensure in#(epth(e*ates the a =usti$es an unmana"ea*ly lar"enum*er o! plans that curtail monitorin" in every

sector


15/24

Fiel( contextual (e$nitions 2re!er (e$nitions !romexperts an( relate( to phrases in the resolution

This is Dey to un(erstan(in" the topic an( !ocuse((iscussion


16/24

'oters


17/24

A *roa( topic prevents preparation an( in(epthanalysis *ecause it shi!ts (e*ate away !rom the

core controversy this Dills ne" !airness an( topice(ucation


18/24

@ C2


19/24

Text>esolve(: The 2resi(ent o! the 6nite( States shoul( issue anexecutive or(er that reco"niGes the surveillance o! solitarycon$nement as cruel an( unusual punishment an( curtails its

use !rom the prison system

@*ama has power over solitary con$nement via executiveor(er

ilperin O1B (@uliet ilperin, @anuary "B, "C1B, Dashington ost, -3bama banssolitary confnement or juveniles in ederal prisons”,https www4washingtonpost4com politics obama'bans'solitary'confnement' or'

juveniles'in' ederal'prisons "C1B C1 "= C=Be1#b"'cKa"'11e='PBPK'PKKa#dK1bcc


20/24

Case @verview2rivatiGation turn ) their elimination o! this !orm o!"overnment surveillance !orces it into the han(s o! the privatesphere an( lea(s to even less accounta*ility Turns case an(causes their impacts in even "reater proportionAnup Shah 1 , 1C'>'"C1K, 6$urveillance $tate .$A $pying and more M *lobal%ssues,6 .o ublication, http www4globalissues4org article


21/24

increase in surveillance 4 As it is multiple, unstable and lac9s discernible boundariesor responsible governmental departments, the surveillant assemblage cannot bedismantled by prohibiting a particularly unpalatable technology4 .or can it beattac9ed by ocusing criticism on a single bureaucracy or institution4 %n the ace omultiple connections across myriad technologies and practices, struggles against

particular mani estations o surveillance , as important as they might be, are a9in toeEorts to 9eep the oceanOs tide bac9 with a broom L a rantic ocus on a particularunpalatable technology or practice while the general tide o surveillance washesover us all 4 erhaps we ris9 having something still more monumental swept away inthe tide4 +ecall FoucaultOs (1P>C K) controversial (and re&uently mis'understood) musings at the end o :he 3rder o :hings4 %n this conclusion to hisarchaeology o how the understanding o Nan has been trans ormed in diEerentepochs as humanity came into contact with diEerent orces, Foucault suggests that% those arrangements were to disappear as they appeared, i some event o whichwe can at the moment do no more than sense the possibility 4 4 4 were to causethem to crumble, as the ground o classical thought did, at the end o theeighteenth century, then one can certainly wager that :he surveillant assemblageBCP man would be erased, li9e a ace drawn in sand at the edge o the sea4(Foucault 1P>C K) Among the proli eration o late'modern orces which arecandidates or contributing to such a radical trans ormation we can include theintensi ' cation o technologized orms o observation4


22/24

Case 2roper


23/24

Car(s;eontolo"ical a*solutes create *a( conceptions o! privacyThey (estroy our a*ility to truly a(vance privacySolove . Janiel $olove is an Associate ro essor at *eorge Dashington0niversity ?aw $chool and holds a @4J4 rom Iale ?aw $chool, he is one o the worldOsleading e pert in in ormation privacy law and is well 9nown or his academic wor9on privacy and or popular boo9s on how privacy relates with in ormationtechnology, he has written P boo9s and more than =C law review articles, "CC"(-!onceptualizing rivacy,” Available online athttp papers4ssrn4com solK papers4c m/abstractQidYK1K1CK , accessed on > 1> 1=)

Dhy should scholars and judges adopt my approach to conceptualizing privacy/ :o deal with the myriad o problems involving privacy, scholars and judges will have to adopt multiple conceptionso privacy, or else the old conceptions will lead them astray in fnding solutions4 :he!ourtOs 1P"< decision in 3lmstead v4 0nited $tatesK#= epitomizes the need or Ze ibility in conceptualizing privacy4

:he !ourt held that the wiretapping o a personOs home telephone (done outside a personOs house) did not run a oul

o the Fourth Amendment because it did not involve a trespass inside a personOs home4K#B @ustice ?ouis 8randeisvigorously dissented, chastising the !ourt or ailing to adapt the !onstitution to new problems - %Hn the applicationo a !onstitution, our contemplation cannot be only o what has been, but o what may be4”K#> :he 3lmstead !ourthad clung to the outmoded view that the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment was merely reedom romphysical incursions4 As a result, or nearly orty years, the Fourth Amendment ailed to apply to wiretapping, one othe most signifcant threats to privacy in the twentieth century4K#< Finally, in 1PB>, the !ourt swept away this viewin Xatz v4 0nited $tates,K#P holding that the Fourth Amendment did apply to wiretapping4 :hese events underscorethe wisdom o 8randeisOs observations in 3lmsteadMthe landscape o privacy is constantly changing, or it is

shaped by the rapid pace o technological invention, and there ore, the law must maintain greatZe ibility in conceptualizing privacy problems4 :his Ze ibility is impeded by the useo an overarching conception o privacy4 :rying to solve all privacy problems with auni orm and overarching conception o privacy is a9in to using a hammer not only to insert anail into the wall but also to drill a hole4 Nuch o the law o in ormation privacy was shaped to deal withparticular privacy problems in mind4 :he law has o ten ailed to adapt to deal with the variety o privacy problemswe are encountering today4 %nstead, the law has attempted to adhere to overarching conceptions o privacy that donot wor9 or all privacy problems4 .ot all privacy problems are the same, and diEerentconceptions o privacy wor9 best in diEerent conte ts4 %nstead o trying to ft new problemsinto old conceptions, we should see9 to understand the special circumstances o aparticular problem4 Dhat practices are being disrupted/ %n what ways does the disruption resemble or diEer

rom other orms o disruption/ ;ow does this disruption aEect society and social structure/ :hese are some o the&uestions that should be as9ed when grappling with privacy problems4 %n the remainder o this section, % will discussseveral e amples that illustrate these points4

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=313103http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=313103


24/24

AnalyticsA.: 2auly ’13% Hew re!orms will not a ect the ma=ority o!inmates in solitary con$nement

14 :his card is great or the negative4 %t states that their plan, which is re orm,wonOt aEect many people who suEer4 Flow this card or the negative as asolvency ta9eout vs the aE case4

A.: Story#’1 % @nly throu"h an examination o! our prisoncon$nement policies can we achieve lar"er social(econstruction

14 mpirics disproves this card4 Jeconstructions such as the eministmovements, or the rise o the acceptance o the ?*8:[\ community didnOt

re&uire e amining prison policies4"4 :he card ma9es no mention o prisons4 0nhighlited portions made re erences

to !apitalism and the nlightenment, which have absolutely no connection toprisons4 :he card is power tagged, donOt give them the card until they show!laim Jata Darrant in the !ard specifcally proving their tag4

A.: 7arvar( ?aw >eview#.415% @nly courts can solve14 :he contents o this card doesnOt tal9 about !ongress, or the resident4 %t only

rules out states legislatures4 :hus, the resident and !ongress are viableactors or the plan who can solve4