Employment after prison
Debate Rounds (4)
In this debate, me and my opponent shall argue on why those who have been convicted of a crime, and released from prison, deserve a fair chance of employment like everyone else. Basically, removing any possible rights of allowing the individual from getting a chance for a job. I am Pro, arguing for this, and my opponent shall do the opposite.
No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.
No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.
No Trolls please!
If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".
Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rules
Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section).
Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.
Round 3: Both sides Rebuttal
Round 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.
Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was.
Employment: The condition of having paid work
Prison: A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial.
Any questions or clarification for this debate can be asked in the comment section.
Good luck to whoever accepts! Also, I am doing this debate for an argumentive paper in my school and need view points from the opposing side. So, thanks for whoever accepts.
Ok I thank my opponent for accpeting this debate, and hope that we can have a fun one. Before posting my first argument, I like to please reaffirm to keep the opening argument short, like you will see in this round; and that my opponent may Rebuttal with my argument in this round.
To begin my argument, of why employment after prison is needed, I like to show a statistic on the types of crimes criminals did to end up in jail. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (1), 48.4% of criminals in prison are related to drug offenses. Examples including using an illegal drug, or overdosing in drugs. That is nearly half of the prisoners in prison within the United States. My opponent may be asking "How does this apply to letting them have a job"? To answer that assumed question, I like to respond with a term known as "Recidivism". Learned within my Criminal Justice class, and from National Institute of Justice (2), recidivism is: "It refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime". How common is this? According to journalist Caitlin Dickson (3), she said: "404,638 state prisoners from 30 states who were released in 2005. It found that 67.8 percent of them were re-arrested within three years of their release and 76.6 percent were re-arrested within five years. Of the latter group, more than a third were re-arrested in the first six months after leaving prison, and more than half were arrested by the end of the first year".
That is a lot, and those numbers are easily increasing year after year. Why do they do this? The number one reason, according to Caitlin Dickson, is because of the criminals having nothing to do in life, or can't make into this world. Why should they just be thrown back, pay for their comfort environment, when we could help them in getting a job? How? The simple answer is to get rid of a majority of jobs with "The Box" that state the individual has been convicted of a crime. With this method, higher employment, second chances, and economic increase will occur; and has been proven to work. According to the article "How Second Chances Are Helping States Reduce Their Crime Rates" (4), it states that with this event, more people got second chances and have a job and the prison populations reduced.
If there are many benefits to this idea, why should it not be used? It is not being asked on big jobs, but more so simple jobs; so the criminal can get back on track from his or her life. And with that, I'll end my opening argument and can't wait for my opponent to argue.
Rebuttal: First off, yes it is true that a large number of criminals are sent back to prison because they have nothing to do. However this has nothing to do with the fact that they are unemployed. For example, If a white man was unemployed does it automatically give him nothing to do and therefore cause him to perform a crime of some sort and be sentenced to prison? Of course not, why? because he is in a surrounding that is safe and far from illegal activities.
Many of the inmates are Black and are from Black communities (Based on the Age specific arrest rates and Race specific arrest rates for selected offences 1993-2001 along with the 2000-2014 edition released by the FBI) and despite all the stereotypes that black communities get most of it is true. With an easy access to drugs and alcohol along with the "talk with your fists" attitude it is clear to see that anyone, not just the black community is prone to doing illegal activities.
To sum up my rebuttal, Just because freed prisoners have nothing to do because they are unemployed does not mean that is the reason why they go back to prison. The reason why they go to prison is because they are placed back into the surroundings, the society that they came from.
Argument 1: Criminals freed should not be employed because of their inability to cope with the outside world. Criminals especially those who have been given long sentences spend their days in a routine schedule. Meal times, free times, lights out have all been routine and has been that way for them for years. When they are freed they are unable to cope with that new-found freedom. If they are unable to cope with just living in the outside how are they to cope with the stresses of having a job that even normal people have a hard time doing. Also because they are unable to cope with the outside world they relapse into the crime that they had previously committed. Based on the studies on Long Term Incarceration done by the John Howard Society of Alberta, it shows that prisoners who have been imprisoned for long periods of time suffer many psychological problems during their time in prison. This includes deprivation of liberty,autonomy, and security. With these psychological problems still in their minds they are sent to the outside world where they are unable to deal with the world that has changed.
To summarize, Criminals should not be employed because of their inability to cope with the ever changing outside world due to their long incarceration periods.
FBI- Age Specific Race Specific PDF
Effects of Long Term Incarceration- http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca...
I thank my opponent for following the structure so far, and will Rebuttal his arguments in this round of the debate.
To begin, I will take quotes stated by my opponent and rebuttal against them on why employment after prison is needed. My opponents quotes shall be italicized to easier identification for my opponent and voters for this debate.
However this has nothing to do with the fact that they are unemployed. For example, If a white man was unemployed does it automatically give him nothing to do and therefore cause him to perform a crime of some sort and be sentenced to prison? Of course not, why? because he is in a surrounding that is safe and far from illegal activities Of course not, why? because he is in a surrounding that is safe and far from illegal activities..
My opponent agrees with my previous statement that the reason why crime occurs is because of no "distraction" being placed upon the criminal from doing illegal activities. I'm glad we can agree on that, but my opponent attempts to rebuttal with a scenario about an unemployed while man. Its true he probably will not result in crime;however, he wasn't in prison for a period of time. After being released from prison, the individual is a different person than before with his or her background history following them around for the rest of their life. My opponent can argue that this cannot affect their employment, when it does. According to National Institute of Justice (1): "More than 80 percent of the statutes operate as a denial of employment opportunities". 80% of job applicants get denied, and results in their unemployment and why they result into crime.
My opponent continues on with his or her rebuttal that the reason why the white man scenario has this benefit is because of living away from crime. I like how my opponent brings this argument up, yet has no evidence to support this claim. I do however have evidence to support my argument on how employment reduces chances of crime within the individual. Acoording to the article "Research of Reentry and Employment" (2): "Being employed substantially reduced the risk of all recidivism outcomes". The article further states that in 2008, 66% of prisoners employed after prison time did not do any sort of illegal activity compared to those who failed to find a job and resulted back into prison.
The reasoning for this can be said under Robert Merton's Strain Theory (3), which is: "The theory states that social structures may pressure citizens to commit crimes". Examples include not having any money to support oneself, which brings desperation of commiting crime. Has this been proven? Actually, yes because in 2008 (4) this theory was tested on deliquants in juvenile camp. They asked a series of questions and the number one reason they commited a crime was because of not having any money to support themselves. At least with the ability to get a job, without being denied for having criminal background history, these recently released individuals can fix up their life.
Criminals freed should not be employed because of their inability to cope with the outside world. Criminals especially those who have been given long sentences spend their days in a routine schedule. Meal times, free times, lights out have all been routine and has been that way for them for years. When they are freed they are unable to cope with that new-found freedom. If they are unable to cope with just living in the outside how are they to cope with the stresses of having a job that even normal people have a hard time doing.
For this rebuttal, I like to please refer back to a statistic I brought up. The statistic was that the highest type of crime in prison was smoking an ounce of marijuana, or doing any sort of illegal drug usage. The charges for that, averagely, is either having to pay a $1000 fine or 1 year of incarceration (5). That is not very long ideally, and if we go even further on drug related crimes the penalty for drug abuse, according to the website "Drug Abuse" (6), is around 20-30 months. That is about two years, and what my opponent claims as "Unable to cope" is over exaggerated because a prisoner wil be able to cope after a year or two from prison. That truly isn't a long time, and those who did get long term sentences are mostly there for more violent crimes. Which is actually very low because only 13% of prisoners are murders, rapists, or very violent (7).
In sum, my opponent argues that prisoners are unable to cope with the outside world; however, the majority of crimes are for drug offences. The punishment is only for a year or two, which should not make a huge amount of difference similarily to military troops being deployed for a few years. No psychological effect should cause true punishment because what my opponent is referring to are very violent crimes. These crimes are petty, and will not have a long sentence making my opponents argument null.
Bearsy forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited the round meaning that the vote should be pretty easy to determine.
Bearsy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.