This week’s motion – ‘This House would introduce shame punishments for minor offences’ – proved difficult for our debaters, as we quickly focused on what this would mean for the mental health of offenders, as opposed to what it would mean for the whole of society: would this make us, the people walking around the streets, using public services, and shops, making our way in life as best we can – would this motion make us better off? What would the world look like under the motion? How is the status quo – the way things are now – so bad that such a desperate recourse is needed. The team of Jaden Chiu & Sourish Chanda in the Closing Opposition position focused more on this ‘stake holder’: the man or woman on the street, and so won the debate. Whether this would be good or bad for offenders, is neither here nor there, but would it be good for society? Would we live in a safer world if minor offenders were treated so harshly, so disrespectfully? After half term we will debate if we should only allow those who pass a political awareness exam to vote.

 

Mr Ahern & Mr Murphy