Facebook
Popular Active Like-Minded
Member since: Apr 27, 12:15 ET

Record

5 Ideas: 257 votes, 75% positive
9 Arguments: 32 agree, 4 disagree
8 Comments: 5 likes, 1 dislike
30 Votes: 27 positive, 3 negative
Supporting 16 People
Policy Ideas
1 of 5
Lawyers must provide 50 hours of pro bono legal work within 2 years of being admitted to the bar. More detail
By: saritap
143
facebooktwitterShare on Google+
Arguments
1 of 6
By: saritap
Idea #US2 - Abolish Death Penalty

Congress should abolish the death penalty.

 

Argument
Congress should seriously study the costs, deterrent effect and biases inherent in imposition of the death penalty.  After such a study, it will become clear that the death penalty is senseless and unjust.
Submitted on Apr 28, 17:30 ET
11 Agree 2 Disagree 2 Replies
By: saritap
Idea #US32 - Mandatory pro bono work

Lawyers must provide 50 hours of pro bono legal work within 2 years of being admitted to the bar.

 

Argument
Pro bono work helps fill a huge need in the community, and it provides young lawyers with an opportunity to get good hands-on experience.
Submitted on May 4, 11:17 ET
5 Agree 1 Disagree
By: saritap
Idea #US2 - Abolish Death Penalty

Congress should abolish the death penalty.

 

Argument

I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent, despite studies that might suggest otherwise.  Most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively.  Also, states without the death penalty consistently have lower murder rates than states with the death penalty. 

 

I'm sure a review of the few studies saying that the death penalty is a deterrent would reveal significant flaws and inconsistencies in those studies.

Submitted on May 29, 20:14 ET
2 Agree 0 Disagree
By: saritap
Idea #USNY7

Tie post-judgment interest rates in New York state courts to the WSJ prime rate.

 

Argument
Tying post-judgment interest rates to the WSJ prime rate will provide plaintiffs with a return that is comparable to what they would get if they received the judgment on the day it was entered and then invested it.
Submitted on Jun 26, 16:09 ET
0 Agree 0 Disagree
By: saritap
Idea #USNY7

Tie post-judgment interest rates in New York state courts to the WSJ prime rate.

 

Argument
Defendants should not be penalized for exercising their right to appeal by having to pay such high interest rates after a judgment is entered.
Submitted on Jun 26, 16:09 ET
0 Agree 0 Disagree
By: saritap
Idea #USTX11

Capital punishment only for people who commit murder in prison.

 

Argument

I oppose capital punishment in all circumstances, but if there has to be some method for removing from society people who truly can't be reformed, it would be to execute only those who commit murder in prison. 

 

Unlike in most instances, imposing the death penalty on people who commit murder in the tightly controlled environment of prison might actually have a deterrent effect, because people who commit such murders should know they are likely to be caught and are probably not intoxicated.  Such a policy would also mean that the only people who are executed are the ones who have shown that life imprisonment is not enough to protect society from them.  And I assume that there would be near certainty of guilt, because of close monitoring by prison guards.

Submitted on May 29, 21:54 ET
1 Agree 0 Disagree
2000 characters remaining
Counterarguments
1 of 3
By: Faisal7
Idea #US59 - Does God really have a role?

Should just anyone who claims to be a Christian have their testimony accepted at face value?

 

Counterargument
Article IV, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  Are you looking to change this dictate of the most-revered founding fathers?
Submitted on May 14, 08:54 ET
8 Agree 1 Disagree 1 Reply
By: GregOrr
Idea #US41 - Gay Marriage by Federal Statute

Legalize gay marriage by federal statute. Denying gay marriage is clearly unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

 

Counterargument

I'm all for the federal government legalizing gay marriage, but would such a law be constitutional? In finding certain provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a federal court found that states have the authority to regulate and define marriage, because marital status determinations traditionally have been viewed as falling within a state’s sovereign power. I'm not sure if this is the way it has to be, or just the way it traditionally has been, but a federal law legalizing gay marriage might be unconstitutional.

Submitted on May 9, 17:35 ET
6 Agree 4 Disagree 1 Reply
Idea #US9 - Mandatory Trial by Jury

Trial by jury should not be a right, it should be mandatory.

 

Counterargument
Jurors often don't understand complicated issues, so many litigants of complicated cases would rightfully prefer a bench trial.  This may be less true for criminal than civil cases, but probably still true to some extent.
Submitted on Apr 29, 07:37 ET
2 Agree 0 Disagree
2000 characters remaining
Content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, except as otherwise noted. Terms of Use. Privacy Policy.
You must be logged in to submit your idea!
 Username/Email
Not a member? Signup Now!