[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

OJ & Fast DebateWithout engaging in a full discussion of the advantages of fast debate, let

In the OJ trial, the prosecution accused the defense of sandbagging their
evidence, that is, they did not provide evidence in a timely fashion.  Marcia
Clark, the lead prosecutor, was appalled.  She asked for sanctions.  Judge
Ito asked Clark to list the sanctions that she thought appropriate.  Clark
listed four sanctions that she felt were justified.  Simpson defense
attorney, Carl Douglass, was the respondent.  I watched him as Clark spoke.
 Much to my chagrin, he was not flowing.  He sat impassively as Clark
indicated to Ito what sanctions ought to be applied, remember there were
four.  

After Clark finished her diatribe.  Douglas stood up and responded.  He was
intent on explaining that no egregious violations had been committed.
 Ito--on the other hand--was interested in Douglas answering the legitimacy
of each sanction.   Said Ito:  "Mr. Douglas, I am interested in hearing what
your response is to the proposed sanctions. Douglas had to pause, for he had
not flowed the four sanctions and was ill-prepared to answer them.  Asked
Douglas:  "Can you refresh my memory as to what the sanctions were?  Of
course, Ito & Clark reiterated the sanctions.  As I sat, I had feelings of
deja vu.  Memories of statements like "haven't I told you to flow; haven't I
told you to go line-by-line," rang incessantly through my head.

I was flabergasted by his performance.  I thought to myself, good Debaters
would have flowed the four sanctions and answered each.  Douglas'
line-by-line was atrocious.  I think if he had been trained in academic
debate, the debate that many opine has no real world application, he would
have flowed her answers, answered them line-by-line, and looked better
prepared.   I would have loved to have seen him say, "Now, off the first
sanction where the prosecution argues that we should have a trial delay to
allow them to prepare.  First, no reason, they have had six months already.
 No reason to give them more time.  Second, delays confuse the jury, and we
have had numerous delays already.  Third, . . ."  

You should get the picture.  

Flowing and fast debate have a place in the real world!

Thoughts.

Mark J. Jones
California Lutheran University

"Murder was the case that they gave me."  Snoop Doggy Dogg
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page