College Policy Debate Forums
November 22, 2017, 09:23:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: de facto  (Read 2315 times)
joepatrice
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« on: June 11, 2014, 04:19:59 PM »

Toward the end I raised the issue of using the phrase "de facto" when discussing some decriminalization topics. Specifically, I think this is an appropriate (if not necessary) modifier for decriminalizing homelessness. For example, saying, "the de facto criminalization of homelessness through public order laws" is incredibly precise legally.

As discussed earlier in the day, some things aren't actually "criminalized" (de jure) but supposedly "neutral" laws are used to make those statuses "in fact" criminal. Homelessness is a great example because there is no law making it criminal to be homeless, yet most of the public order laws are applied to make the homeless de facto criminals.

While there are journalists and academics who will make claims like "the criminalization of homelessness," this is really puffery to attract eyeballs. To be legally precise, that's not what criminalization is, though it is accurate with the addition of de facto. This distinction is important for both policy types -- because that's how the laws really work -- and K folks -- because the covert means by which the government makes "criminals" without using honestly targeted criminal laws is exactly what K ground is made of.

Honestly, I think the "de facto" modifier may be useful for a lot of areas that are not REALLY topical under decriminalization but could be. For example, the Aff could end the defacto criminalization of the following: homelessness, black bodies (or a more appropriate term from the literature), abortion, HIV status -- all areas where we all kind of agree there aren't precise "criminal laws" about the issue, but they are all in fact subject to criminal treatment and thereby capture all the different kinds of laws that are used in the package of oppressing people.

So that was my thought when I said that.

Joe
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!