Prisons Neg
Case Frontlines
Solvency
*If you aren’t reading the transphobia K, read one of the Lamble cards (the last two) in the Visuality and
Identity file under queer pessimism in the prison links on the solvency flow as a reason why reforms
can’t solve – talks about how it renders sexual violence invisible both inside and outside the system
because the problem is “solved for” by the government (might have to retag the card) – turns aff
solvency
1. No solvency – jails are local and short-term facilities, prisons are long-term facilities
- can’t have spillover from local level to federal level
Bureau of Justice Statistics No Date (“What is the Difference Between Jails and Prisons?” Part of
the US Department of Justice, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=322)
Jails are locally-operated, short term facilities that hold inmates awaiting trial or sentencing or both, and
inmates sentenced to a term of less than 1 year, typically misdemeanants. Prisons are long term facilities run by
the state or the federal government and typically hold felons and inmates with sentences of more than
1 year. Definitions may vary by state.
2. No solvency- the nature of prison is inherently sexually violent. The affirmative
focuses on sexual violence while refusing to face the other issues of sexual violence
that occurs inside of prisons. This turns case as the affirmative leaves these other
forms to be ignored and increase while the world feels good about how they solved
for sexual violence in prisons.
Arkels, 2015 Gabriel. Professor of Legal Skills at Northeastern University School of Law. Regulating
Prison Sexual Violence. Northeastern University Law Journal. Vol. 7 No. 1. 71-130.
In this article, I argue that a fundamental tension arises in efforts to curb carceral sexual violence.
Preventing sexual violence requires an expansion of bodily autonomy for prisoners, in that to be free
from sexual violence one must have at least the ability to prevent certain nonconsensual acts upon the
body. Also, sexual self-determination, including not only the freedom to say “no,” but also to say “yes,” is an
integral part of preventing sexual violence.5 And as many women-of-color feminists and critical theorists
have established, freedom from sexual violence requires redistribution of wealth and power6 and an end
to gender, racial, class, sexuality, nationality, and disability-based subordination.7 However, imprisonment
demands major infringements on the bodily autonomy and self-determination of prisoners that courts,
regulators, and legislatures frequently hesitate to curtail. For example, carceral agencies routinely require
their staff and contractors to perform strip searches, body cavity searches, and nonconsensual medical
interventions on prisoners: acts that have much in common with other forms of sexual violence. Carceral
agencies and their staff control the movements, activities, clothing, sexual expression, basic hygiene,
nutrition, and virtually every other aspect of the biological and social lives of prisoners.8 As Alice
Ristroph argues, incarceration is inherently a sexual punishment, because of the extent of corporal
control that carceral systems exert over prisoners.9 Incarceration cannot be fully desexualized.10
Carceral mechanisms also aggravate inequitable distribution of wealth and power, as well as subordination
on the basis of race, gender, class, disability, nationality, religion, and sexuality.11 A reluctance to frankly confront
the tension between protection of autonomy and maintenance of control has diminished possibilities for
meaningfully and transparently addressing carceral sexual violence. In this article, I begin that frank confrontation.
3. No reason officers would listen – just because strip searches out in the open won’t
be legal doesn’t mean they will stop behind closed doors. It’s the aff burden to prove
that guards would follow this policy
4. Plan can’t solve – alt causes and reforms make issues worse through the system of
incarceration. If not through sexual violence, then those who are targeted will be
forced into solitary confinement – can’t work within the system
Lamble 2011 (S. Lamble has been involved in social justice, antipoverty and prisoner solidarity work in Ontario, Canada and London, England. Lamble
currently teaches at Birkbeck Law School, University of London and is a founding member of the Bent Bars Project, a collective which coordinates a letter writing
program for queer, trans and gender-non-conforming prisoners in Britain, “Transforming Carceral Logics: 10 Reasons to transform the prison industrial complex
through queer/trans analysis and action,” Captive Genders pg 243)
Prisons are harmful, violent, and damaging places, especially for∂ queer, trans, and gender-nonconforming folks.∂ Prisons are violent institutions. People in prison and detention experience∂ brutal human
rights abuses, including physical assault, psychological∂ abuse, rape, harassment, and medical neglect.
Aside from these violations,∂ the act of putting people in cages is a form of violence in itself. Such∂
violence leads to extremely high rates of self-harm and suicide, both in∂ prison and following release.35
These problems are neither exceptional nor∂ occasional; violence is endemic to prisons It is important to bear in mind that prison
violence stems largely∂ from the institutional structure of incarceration rather than from something∂
supposedly inherent to prisoners themselves. Against the popular∂ myth that prisons are filled with violent
and dangerous people, the vast∂ majority of people are held in prison for non-violent crimes, especially∂
drug offenses and crimes of poverty.36 For the small number of people∂ who pose a genuine risk to themselves or others, prisons
often make those∂ risks worse. In other words, prisons are dangerous not because of who is∂ locked inside, but
instead prisons both require and foster violence as part∂ of their punitive function. For this reason, reform
efforts may reduce, but∂ cannot ultimately eliminate, prison violence.∂ The high number of deaths in state custody
speaks to the devastating∂ consequences of imprisonment. Between 1995 and 2007, the British∂ prison-monitoring group Inquest documented
more than 2,500 deaths in∂ police and prison custody.37 Homicide and suicide rates in Canadian prisons∂ are nearly eight times the rate found
in non-institutional settings.38∂ In
the United States between 2001 and 2006, there were 18,550 adult∂ deaths in
state prisons,39 and between 2003 and 2005, there were an additional∂ 2,002 arrest-related deaths.40 It is
extremely rare for state officials∂ to be held accountable for these deaths. For example, among the deaths∂ that
Inquest has documented in Britain, not one police or prison officer∂ to date has been held criminally responsible
5. Prohibitions on consensual relation ships also lead to sexual violence in prisons.
Arkels, 2015 Gabriel. Professor of Legal Skills at Northeastern University School of Law. Regulating
Prison Sexual Violence. Northeastern University Law Journal. Vol. 7 No. 1. 71-130.
The enforcement of prohibitions on consensual sex often involves physical and sexual violence. Detecting
sex requires extensive surveillance, which may involve viewing the naked body or even touching or
penetrating the body through searches or medical exams. Punishing people for consensual sex also often
involves direct intrusion on the body, including forcibly removing people from where they are and placing them in
solitary confinement. “In both jails and in the prison I was in, sexual contact was punishable by time in the
hole.”135 Loss of good time credits, another common punishment for consensual sex, forces people to
remain in prison for longer periods of time. Lin Elliot said, “Even in states—such as here in Washington—
where there are no laws against homosexuality, consensual sex between prisoners is against prison rules
and can result in severe punishment—even loss of ‘good time,’ thereby extending a person’s
sentence.”136 Placement in solitary confinement, as well as longer terms of confinement in prison, in
turn make people more vulnerable to other forms of sexual violence, including rape. Other penalties for
consensual sex include forced labor, and forced separation from one’s lover.137 Punishments are not
always equal: they can be worse for trans people and for HIV positive people.13 Prohibitions on
consensual sex perpetrate homophobia and transphobia, which can increase the level of sexual and
other violence targeting people perceived as trans or queer. While trans and queer people are far from
the only people having sex in prison, they are often assumed to be having sex and get punished for it.139
Historically, concerns about sexuality in prison have focused at least as much on homosexuality as on sexual
assault.140 Courts continue to accept stopping or discouraging homosexuality and homosexual relationships as
“legitimate penological objectives.”141 Because prisons tend to conflate queer and trans identity,
consensual sex in prison, and sexual assault, prison officials have at times interpreted measures against
rape to express zero tolerance for queer and trans people.142 Some prison officials expressed confusion
about the PREA regulation stating that prisons may not treat consensual sex the same as sexual assault.143 This
confusion speaks to the deeper issue—that prison officials still see queer sex as the problem, not sexual
assault— or they see the two as indistinguishable and identically bad. Jason Lydon, a formerly incarcerated
gay man and founder of Black and Pink, explains, “[u]nfortunately, it is against the rules, and in many states against
the law, for prisoners to have sex with each other (and in some places prisoners even get in trouble for
masturbating). The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) has also increased guard harassment of prisoners in
romantic relationships with each other. Black and Pink has gotten reports of prisoners getting disciplinary tickets for
simply holding hands.”144 Martin Morales, in her pro se complaint challenging Vermont prohibitions on
consensual sex in prison, identified a host of problems that the prohibitions caused, including “sexual
assaults within the incarceration system…homophobia…hatred…and bigotry.”145 Citing Romer v. Evans,
she explained that these prohibitions are rooted in anti-LGBT prejudice.146 As another author explains, teaching
homophobic, transphobic, and sexist sexual shame can make people more vulnerable to abuse in
relationships. “If that little girl has learned that her queer longings and desires are sinful … and dirty, and that she
should expect to be beaten and raped by the upstanding citizens … then how will she know when the things her
lover does to her are abusive? If that non-gender-conforming child has never been allowed to name hir own body,
and learned everyone but hirself has the right to name, manipulate, and modify hir body, then how will ze know
when a touch is invasive?”147 Others have also pointed out that prohibitions on consensual sex keep prisoners from
learning positive relationship skills. Paul Wright says, “If most prisoners are going to be getting out, how are you
helping to make them better people from when they came in? […] If you accept the fact that relationships are a
normal part of human existence, what are you doing to normalize that?”148 Derrick Corley, a writer and prisoner in
New York, said, “If it is true that healthy people have healthy relationships, and, if these relationships are
systematically denied prisoners, then how can we be expected to eventually live in society as normal, law-abiding,
productive people?” The focus on preventing consensual sex can lead prison officials to put prisoners in
unnecessarily dangerous situations. A prisoner named Steven said, “They will put you in a 12 X 8 cell with a
homophobe and expect you to get along with your cellmate. Heaven forbid they put you in a cell with another
bisexual, transgender, or gay individual because they will automatically assume that ya’ll are having sex. What do
they care if we have consensual sex?”150 A stud151 in a women’s state prison agrees : “If you want to have a
relationship with somebody or cell up with them that should be your business. This would create a much
safer environment for everybody.”152 The prohibitions on consensual sex can also deter prisoners from
coming forward about sexual assault, for fear that they will be punished for having sex. That is exactly
what happened to one of my former clients, who was disciplined for having sex when she told a staff member that
another prisoner had raped her. Brenda V. Smith points out that if prisons permitted consensual sexual expression,
they could improve in several ways. For example, they could “appropriately identify[] acts that are consensual as
opposed to coerced … to more accurately report information to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and meet the data
collection requirements of the [Prison Rape Elimination] Act.”153 This shift in focus would also lead officials to
devote their limited resources to focus on preventing, investigating, and responding to sexual violence, rather than
consensual sex.154 She acknowledges that “recognizing and granting inmates a degree of sexual expression may
enhance inmate safety by decreasing prison rape” and agrees with those described above that it would also “help
prisoners learn healthy and responsible sexual behavior prior to reentering the community.”1
Framing (if reading extinction impacts)
Our interpretation is that you should weigh the impacts based on three factors:
probability, magnitude, and time frame. Hold magnitude in a high regard – it
determines the severity of the situation and is a useful skill and one that policymakers
use.
Moral obligation hurts political responsibility and allows for injustices and violence to
occur
Jeffrey Isaac 2002, professor of political sicence and director of the center for the study of democracy and public life at Indiana University, “Ends, Means,
and Politics,” Dissent
As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an
unyielding concern with
moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a
kind of personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one’s
intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause
with morally compromised parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any
moral good beyond the clean conscience of their supporters; (2)
it fails to see that in a world of real violence and
injustice, moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice.
This is why, from the standpoint of politics— as opposed to religion—pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In
categorically repudiating violence, it refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and
(3) it fails to see that politics is as much about unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is
the effects of action, rather than the motives of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with “good” may
engender impotence, it is often the pursuit of “good” that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in
the twentieth century: it is not enough that one’s goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects
of pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways. Moral absolutism inhibits this
judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And it undermines
political effectiveness.
Case Extensions
Solvency
1. No solvency – the aff’s plan only changes the blanket policy of jails, which can’t
solve for two reasons:
a. Jails are local while prisons are federal – the USFG can’t tell jails what to do nor do
they have a means of enforcing what happens in jail. No spillover claims – spillover
would be the opposite – beginning with the prison/federal level and then spilling over
to the local level of jails
b. Prisons are the long-term facilities – not changing anything in prison systems means
the aff can’t solve for other structural systems
2. Turn – the aff only focuses on one scenario of sexual violence in prisons – this
delegitimizes other instances that happen within prisons – Arkels. The plan creates the
idea that a “good job” has been done and shifts focus onto the next issue, rendering
other cases of violence within prison systems invisible even though the nature of the
prison system is sexually violent based on alternative causes like medical searches.
3. There is no proof or reason as to why guards would listen – the violence would no
longer take place in the open, but could still happen behind closed doors – this is
arguably worse because there is no acknowledgement of there being a problem.
Instead, it becomes invisible because of the idea that the issue has been “solved for”
4. No solvency – reforms worsen the system and allow guards to continue abusing
prisoners in other ways like through solitary confinement – Lamble 11. Prison systems
also exacerbate existing acts of violence performed by those who were put in prison
for violent crimes, making these systems inherently dangerous.
5. Alt causes to sexual violence – Arkels indicates that sexual violence happens often
between prisoners because the victim is too scared to come forward out of fear of
being punished for having sex, especially trans and queers who are the primary
targets of these prohibitions.
6. (If they read Miller 2k and y’all are running a kritik): Miller flows neg – all Miller
does is criticize the current system, but that is tied to the basis of the system itself –
creating blanket policies does nothing to change the groundings of sexual violence
within prisons that is connected to a specific mindset.
7. Can’t solve for trans who have not had surgery – they are not classified with their
gender identity in prison – increases their risk of sexual violence even with the plan
NCLR 2000 (National Center for Lesbian Rights, 2000, “Transsexual Prisoners,” http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/prisoners.htm)
Do transgender prisoners have a right to be housed in a facility consistent with their gender identity?∂ Transsexual
people who have
not had genital surgery are generally classified according to their birth sex for purposes of prison
housing, regardless of how long they may have lived as a member of the other gender, and regardless of
how much other medical treatment they may have undergone[1] -- a situation which puts male-to-female
transsexual women at great risk of sexual violence. Transsexual people who have had genital surgery are
generally classified and housed according to their reassigned sex.∂ One mechanism that is sometimes used to protect
transsexual women who are at risk of violence due to being housed in male prisons is to separate them from other prisoners. This is referred to
as “administrative segregation.” On the positive side, placing a transgender or transsexual woman in administrative segregation may provide
her with greater protection than being housed in the general population. On the negative side, however, administrative segregation also results
in exclusion from recreation, educational and occupational opportunities, and associational rights.[2]
8. Alt causes – non-consensual medical procedures are part of normal prison policy
that sexually violate the prisoners. The affirmative makes no move to combat this
unique form of violence that involves penetrating the body.
Arkels, 2015 Gabriel. Professor of Legal Skills at Northeastern University School of Law. Regulating
Prison Sexual Violence. Northeastern University Law Journal. Vol. 7 No. 1. 71-130.
Prisoners retain a limited right to refuse treatment, but state interests significantly constrain this right.74 For
example, if certainsubstantive and procedural thresholds are met, medical professionalsmay medicate detained people
with psychiatric disabilities against theirwill.75 Courts have held that nonconsensual treatment with insulin for
diabetes,76 nonconsensual testing for AIDS,77 nonconsensual vaccination for Hepatitis A,78 and
nonconsensual artificial nutrition and hydration79 do not violate prisoners’ constitutional rights. As Iwill discuss further
below, courts have also found some nonconsensual gynecological and rectal exams to be lawful. However,
nonconsensual treatment may not always be permitted, particularly where the prisoner objects based on sincerely held religious beliefs.80
Deliberate denial of necessary medical care can also be unlawful.81In or out of prison, people often do give full, free, knowing consent to
medical interventions. In some situations, providingmedical care to someone who cannot consent—someone who is,for example,
unconscious—may be appropriate. Here, I am only considering those situations where a person could have consentedbut did not, or where a
person could not consent and no legitimatemedical need supported the intervention. I don’t argue that everynonconsensual medical
intervention is a form of sexual violence;while nonconsensual medical interventions may always be violent,the violence is not necessarily
always sexual. I focus on those nonconsensual medical
interventions that involve stripping someoneor forcing
someone to strip; touching or penetrating the genitals, anus, breasts, or reproductive organs; or
harming a person’s capacityfor sexual pleasure, sexual acts, or reproduction. Like searches, the physical acts of
nonconsensual medicalinterventions are often indistinguishable from other forms of sexualviolence. Mandatory medical exams are
widely imposed in prisonsand jails, including gynecological exams.82 “[Women prisoners]
haveexperienced sexual violence in their private lives, in their domesticlives, in their intimate lives. And
then they go to prison where theirbodies are handled by so-called doctors who are sticking things
intotheir vaginas and their anuses and it feels exactly like the sexualabuse that they have already
experienced.”83 One imprisoned womandescribes her physical pain and the doctor’s denial of her experienceduring an exam as follows:
“[He] is the biggest man with the biggesthands... [H]e tried to force his way into my cervix and he kept tellinme it wasn’t painful while I was
crying and tears were streamingdown my face.”84Some prisoners
experience nonconsensual vaginal and analexams as
sexual violence. Michann Meadows sued over a doctor nonconsensuallypenetrating her vagina.85 She cried
out during the examand demanded that the doctor stop “jiggling [his] fingers in and outof [her].”86 He refused to stop and pushed his fingers
inside of her even harder, claiming that he needed to do what he was doing to “get around her uterus.”87 The exam caused her pain and
bleeding.88 Afterward, a nurse gave Meadows a menstrual pad and privately advised her to file a complaint against the doctor for his conduct.89
In her complaint, Meadows said she felt sexually violated.90 Jessie
Hill sued over a doctor non-consensually penetrating
his anus and rectum.91 Guards took Hill to a prison doctor after he complained of rectal pain.92 He told the doctor that he consented
only to a visual examination and specifically told the doctor not to stick anything in his rectum.93 The doctor stuck his finger in Hill’s rectum
over his protests.94 When Hill called for the guards to help him, they laughed at him instead.95 Hill said that he experienced the penetration as
rape.96 Also like
searches, nonconsensual medical interventionsinfringe on the same interests in bodily
integrity, privacy, dignity,self-determination, and autonomy as in sexual violence more broadly,and can
cause similar types of harm.97 Forced exams to investigatesexual violence, which typically involve penetration of
the mouth,vagina, and/or anus and come on the heels of other sexual violence,can be particularly
harmful. “Almost all interviewees in a recent studyof survivors of sexual abuse said they were re-traumatized by themedical examination
procedures…. [B]ecause there is an underlyingassumption that they are not to be believed, material evidence
mustbe collected from their bodies as they are objectified and invaded,penetrated a second time by
medical intervention.”98 A prisoner in a California women’s facility said, “Ninety-nine percent of the
womenhave been abused or raped. To have a man take us into an office thesize of a closet . . . stripped down . . . rough and hurts
us . . . it takesus right back to the beginning.”99Other forms of nonconsensual medical interventions,such as
sterilization, also violently control people’s sexuality andreproduction.100 As one Black trans man subjected
to a hysterectomyin a California prison said, “I felt coerced. I didn’t understand theprocedure….I never planned on having children
but I would have likedthe option to be mine.”101 The history of nonconsensual sterilizationIn prisons—including psychiatric institutions—is
extensive. Thesepractices
have tended to target disabled people, low-income people,indigenous people,
queer people, gender nonconforming people,Black people, immigrants, and sexually active women.102
Whilethese practices have often targeted people with a uterus, they havecertainly not spared people with testicles. Nonconsensual castrationhas
been used as a punishment for alleged sexual violence, atreatment for homosexuality, and a part of medical experimentation.103Nonconsensual
sterilization practices are not over. Justice Now recently documented extensive practices of nonconsensualsterilization in California women’s
prisons, which seemed to targetnon-trans women of color and trans men of color.104 Like other formsof sexual violence, these nonconsensual
sterilizations invade people’s
Framing
Extend our interpretation – weigh impacts based on: magnitude, time frame, and
probability – hold magnitude in high regards as it is how policymakers make their
decisions and becomes a portable skill in life.
Claims of “moral obligation” hurt responsibility for those events and allow the cycles
of violence and injustice to continue – Isaac 02. This fits the idea of “the road to Hell is
paved with good intentions” – communism in the 20th century proves as morality
inhibits judgment and undermines political capability.
T USFG
1NC
1. The affirmative is not topical because the overt search of body cavities and strip searches
of inmates are not classified as “undercover activity”. We draw this conclusion because the
only card in the 1ac that makes the affirmative topical, the Marx 98, specifically says that
body cavity searches, strip searches, and other prison-type searches are only domestic
surveillance if they are direct quote “undercover tactics”. Our interpretation is that in order
for those actions to be domestic surveillance they need to be conducted by domestic
surveillance agencies, such as the TSA, FBI, ICE, DEA, etc.
USFG includes three branches
Black’s Law 90 Black’s Law Dictionary, 1990 p. 695 "government"
In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to
administrative agencies. In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus,
state and county governments, and city and tow nship governments.
2. Violation: The aff violates our interpretation because jail surveillance is not
conducted by any USFG domestic surveillance agency.
Jails are under local jurisdiction, while prisons are at the federal level
Bureau of Justice Statistics No Date (“What is the Difference Between Jails and Prisons?” Part of
the US Department of Justice, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=322)
Jails are locally-operated, short term facilities that hold inmates awaiting trial or sentencing or both, and
inmates sentenced to a term of less than 1 year, typically misdemeanants. Prisons are long term facilities run by
the state or the federal government and typically hold felons and inmates with sentences of more than
1 year. Definitions may vary by state.
Police are the responsibility of the State Governments only.
Brian Darling, Brian Darling is Sr. Vice President for Third Dimension Strategies, a strategic communications public relations firm in
Washington, D.C. Darling served as Sr. Communications Director and Counsel for Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) from 2012-15. Before his tenure
with Sen. Paul, Darling served in three different capacities with The Heritage Foundation. “Firefighters, Teachers and Police - Not a Federal
Responsibility”, Jun 18, 2012,
The left wants us to believe that paying for teachers, firefighters
and police is a federal responsibility. Not so. Such
services have traditionally been the responsibility of state and local governments. In Federalist 45, James
Madison wrote that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” Madison argued that state power extends to issues that “concern
the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Nowhere in
the
Constitution is the federal government given the explicit power to supplant the traditional powers of the states.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates powers granted to the federal government. Nowhere does it list the power to “bail out the
states who come up short in paying for firefighters, police and teachers.” Furthermore, when the feds “give” lesser governments money to pay for
local responsibilities, they often attach conditions to funding that may be unconstitutional. The
10th Amendment states “the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The educating of children, the protection of the populace
from crime and the suppression of fires are clearly powers reserved to the states.
3. Standards: The affirmative explodes the topic because they talk about actions that
are not conducted by surveillance agencies. There are multiple agencies within the
USFG that deal with domestic surveillance, such as the FBI, DEA, TSA, and others. The
amount of domestic surveillance these agencies, conduct, such as the bulk gathering
of metadata, stingray, drones, wire-tapping, and many other methods and instances.
This leads to a variety of different affs available to the affirmative. Exploding the topic
leads to no topic specific education, kills neg ground, and decreases fairness.
1. a. A topical version of the Aff would be an aff that only deals with federal
prisons instead of local jails. Federal prisons are owned by the USFG, so they
would be topical under the resolution. CHOOSE 1
1b. A topical version of the aff would be one that deals with TSA border
surveillance and the infringements of personal privacy/ the bodies of people that
they commit.
2. Topicality is key to topic specific education. This is the most important impact
within the debate round because we cannot actually solve for the issues of the
1ac.
4. Voting issue: Topicality is a voting issue because it is key to fair educational debate.
More jail vs prison
A jail is in a county or city while a prison is federal – prefer legal definitions
Margo Schlanger 2003, preparation for a Harvard law seminar, “Differences between jails and prisons,” Prison Readings Part A, pg 42
A jail is paradigmatically a county or city facility that houses pretrial defendants who are∂ unable to make bail,
misdemeanant offenders, relatively short-term felony offenders (the term varies∂ by state – most often, it’s under a year, but it can be far
more), and
short and long-term offenders∂ awaiting transfer to a state prison. A prison, by contrast, is a
state (or federal) facility that houses∂ long-term felony offenders. Many observers of American corrections assume away jails, or at best,∂
assume that jails are just like prisons. Both assumptions warp understanding. There are many areas∂ of difference, but this essay will focus on
four – size, population flow, political setting, and∂ demography.
T Surveillance
1NC Search isn’t Surveillance
1. Interpretation – Surveillance is to closely watch a person, place or thing for the
purpose of investigation and is distinct from a Search which intrudes on an
expectation of privacy.
Hutchins, 2007, Mark, Alameda County District Attorney's Office “Police Surveillance”
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/SURVEILLANCE.pdf
Before we begin, a word about terminology. As used in this article,
the term “surveillance” means to “closely watch” a
person, place, or thing for the purpose of obtaining information in a criminal investigation.5 It also
includes recording the things that officers see or hear, and gaining access to public and private places
from which they can make their observations. It does not include wiretapping and bugging which, because of their highly-intrusive nature, are
subject to more restrictive rules.6 THE TEST: “Plausible vantage point” Surveillance becomes
a “search”—which requires a
warrant—if it reveals sights or sounds that the suspect reasonably believed would be private.7 As the
court explained in People v. Arno, “[T]he test of validity of the surveillance [turns upon] whether that which
is perceived or heard is that which is conducted with a reasonable expectation of privacy.”8 Thus, a warrant is
unnecessary if the suspect knew, or should have known, there was a reasonable possibility that officers or others might have seen or heard
him.9 In the words of the Supreme Court, “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of
Fourth Amendment protection.”10
2. Violation - Prison body cavity searches are not surveillance.
Anthony Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice 2012, Anthony, Opinion of the Majority, 4/2/12,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-945
The Court’s opinion in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520 (1979) , is the starting point for understanding how this
framework applies to Fourth Amendment challenges. That case addressed a rule requiring pretrial
detainees in any correctional facility run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons “to expose their body cavities for visual
inspection as a part of a strip search conducted after every contact visit with a person from outside the institution.” Id., at 558.
Inmates at the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City argued there was no security justification for these searches. Officers
searched guests before they entered the visiting room, and the inmates were under constant surveillance during the visit. Id., at 577–578
(Marshall, J., dissenting). There had been but one instance in which an inmate attempted to sneak contraband back into the facility. See id., at
559 (majority opinion). The Court nonetheless upheld the search policy. It deferred to the judgment of correctional officials that
the inspections served not only to discover but also to deter the smuggling of weapons, drugs, and other prohibited items inside. Id., at 558.
The Court explained that there is no mechanical way to determine whether intrusions on an inmate’s
privacy are reasonable. Id., at 559. The need for a particular search must be balanced against the resulting
invasion of personal rights. Ibid.
Prefer our interpretation
A. Brightline – our interepretation creates a clear and precise limit on the types of
affirmatives that are topical, their interpretation opens up to anything the
government does that might be icky.
B. Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation
makes the topic too big. Including searches adds an entirely different legal regime
with different laws, judicial standards, and other issues for THOUSANDS of different
crimes.
Topicality is a Voting Issue.
Limits cards
There are five kinds of prison searches alone that the aff’s interpretation allows for
that ours does not – proof that the aff explodes the limits
Prisoners’ Legal Service 2002 (Prisoners’ Legal Service Inc., 2002, “Searches of Prisoners,”
www.plsqld.com/files/pamphlets/Searches%20of%20prisoners.doc)
There are five types of searches that can be performed on prisoners in certain circumstances. These range from the
least intrusive scanning search to the extremely intrusive strip search and body search: ∂ Scanning search∂ A search by electronic
or other means that does not require a person to remove their general clothes (except perhaps a coat or shoes) or
to be touched by a person. For example: a hand-held scanner, passing through an “arch” type metal detector or using a sniffer dog.∂ General
search∂ A search to reveal the contents of the person’s outer garments, general clothes (dress, skirt, shirt or
trousers) or hand luggage without touching the person or the luggage. During a general search a person may be required
to open their hands or mouth for visual inspection or to shake their hair vigorously. ∂ Personal search∂ A search during which
light pressure may be momentarily applied to a prisoner over their general clothes (dress, skirt, shirt or trousers)
without direct contact being made with genital or anal areas or a female prisoner’s breasts. Basically a “frisk” type search.∂ Strip search∂ A
search in which a prisoner removes all garments during the search, but direct contact cannot be made
with the prisoner.∂ The searching officer may require the prisoner to hold their arms in the air or to stand with legs apart and bend
forward to enable a visual examination to be made.∂ Strip search guidelines∂ Prison laws, regulations and policies contain a number of
guidelines. These include:∂ Only prison officers of the same gender as the prisoner can carry out a strip search; ∂ There must be at least two
prison officers present, but no more than are reasonably necessary to carry out the search;∂ Before carrying out a strip search the prison officer
must tell the prisoner that they will be required to remove clothing during the search and tell the prisoner why it is necessary to remove the
clothing;∂ The officer must, if reasonably practicable, give the prisoner the opportunity to remain partly clothed during the search, for example,
by allowing the prisoner to dress their upper body before being required to remove clothing from their lower body;∂ A prison officer carrying
out the search must ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the way in which the search is conducted causes minimal embarrassment to
the prisoner;∂ A searching officer must take reasonable care to protect the prisoner’s dignity, must carry out the search as quickly as reasonably
practicable and must allow the prisoner to dress as soon as the search is finished. ∂ Body
search∂ A search of a prisoner’s body
includes an examination of an orifice or cavity of the prisoner’s body. This type of search can only be performed by a
doctor. Some prison doctors refuse to perform these searches.
Four overarching categories of searches that are not surveillance
NMA No Date (Norwegian Medical Association, unknown date, “What types of searches are performed on prisoners?”
https://nettkurs.legeforeningen.no/mod/lesson/view.php?id=1457&pageid=7624)
Most searches performed by prison staff are not body searches. Furthermore, the term “body search” itself has different meanings and
implications which are often confused by the general public and sometimes even by medical staff.∂ Generally speaking, three
categories
of searches performed on prisoners can be distinguished, by increasing degree of thoroughness:∂ pat-down
searches of the clothed body, or "frisking";∂ searches involving the removal of clothing – “strip searches” – usually
performed in two steps (first the upper and then the lower body) but without examining body cavities;∂ squat searches, which
sometimes accompany strip searches;∂ body-cavity searches (visual inspection and manual probing).