The Instigator
Kachow
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,228 times Debate No: 7315
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Kachow

Pro

First Good Luck to my opponent.
Second Thanks to my judges.
Third - yea there isn't a third...

I affirm - Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Definitions –

A.Ought - Used to express duty or moral obligation - http://dictionary.reference.com...
B.Replaced - To provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of - http://dictionary.reference.com...
C.Rehabilitation - to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like - http://dictionary.reference.com...
D.Misdemeanor - A lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year -http://dictionary.law.com...||

Observation:
Because the resolution is asking us if we ought to replace jail time with significant rehabilitation, it is my duty to explain to you why I believe meager jail time wouldnt have a bigger impact for first, society, and secondly, the actual criminal. That in fact significant rehab. will have a greater impact. With this we'll go to the value for the round.

Value: Societal Welfare –
The value of societal welfare is defined as the well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics. It is crucial for us to recognize our very own society within this resolution. Whoever proves the best terms of maintaining, protecting, and improving societal welfare shall win the round.

Criterion: Cost and Benefit analysis –
The criterion of cost and benefit analysis is defined as a system used to weigh the worth of some action through the advantages and disadvantages it incurs. The weighing of harms vs. the actual benefits of an action for this resolution is essential. The resolution is telling us that we need to clearly determine which we ought to abide by, this being first, the welfare of society, and secondly the criminal. When acknowledging a better from of "punishment" it is in our own best interest to note the benefits.

Contention I: - The benefits of rehabilitation.
When examining an article from lunet.edu (http://www.lunet.edu...) the benefits compared to those of jail, in commission of a misdemeanor crime prove to be more efficient. We all know the story of retribution, in that of it self should explain the true benefits of rehabilitation. It is proven that when taking the route of retribution, society gains, and in addition, so does the criminal. These days jail isn't enough to get the point across. The alternative is there, to replace jail time with significant rehabilitation. Furthermore when looking to an AP article of Apr. 2008 – The manner of which criminals are released after jail time correlating with a misdemeanor, their 1. Education and opportunities have lessened MORE THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE 2. And the most essential, is that we diminish criminals right to live. Not only are we interested in societal welfare, but also it is crucial to take into account the actual criminal.

Contention II: How rehabilitation = Societal Welfare.
In the act of rehabilitation, in replacement of jail will significantly help societal welfare for the following reasons:
A.Rehab allows for the betterment of both society, as well as the criminal, in return our society, with the allowance it is proven and a near miss common sense concept that it is more effective.
B.Jail doesn't serve due when it comes to a misdemeanor prosecution. As mentioned above it's not so much proving that jail sucks. It more that we have to acknowledge greater and better opportunities when it comes to these specific crimes. Moreover it ought to be noted that in cases of jail instead of rehabilitation, success is meager. It is further shown in 1967, when a petty man, who beat up an old woman for a few bucks, was given the option, by the judge, to go to jail or enlist in the military. After having structure in his life and a base of support, he was a changed man and did not return to jail ever again. His normal behavior use to be mean and violent and he changed to become a prominent member in society. By giving criminals a reason to live, not only would they be benefiting society by no longer breaking the law, but they would also be benefiting themselves.

There you have it. – now I'm gunna go start my physics… that should have been done awhile ago.
Johnicle

Con

I would like to thank my worthy opponent for this challenge. Even though ‘Sephiroth > Batman' it will still be a great round :D

I negate, Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Resolutional Analysis: The resolution specifies ought to REPLACE. This means that there must be ‘moral obligation' to eliminate jail time and switch it to strictly rehab. Therefore, if I prove that jail time is better than rehabilitation or if I prove that BOTH jail time and rehab is better than rehab, then you must vote con.

CONTENTION ONE: Value- Societal Welfare
---I agree that within this debate, societal welfare is the ultimate goal, however, I must say that eliminating jail time AND replacing it only with rehabilitation will not achieve this. Therefore, I offer my proposition: We should use BOTH jail time AND rehabilitation. This way, rather than finding what system is better for most people, we could use both systems and target integration of more people, because not everyone learns from just being put in a cell, and not every one learns from cheesy rehab sessions with some guy. Some can learn from just one, but several would learn best with both systems.

CONTENTION TWO: Criterion: Propriety

A. Definition
---Defined from http://dictionary.reference.com... as appropriateness to the purpose or circumstances
=====================================

---For weight to my criterion, I offer the following:
-From: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca...
---"The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offence;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
=====================================

B. Replacement of one of the ‘reasons for punishments' fails societal welfare.
---Yes, having simply rehabilitation would meet the weight of the definition however, it would STILL decrease societal welfare. I therefore urge my opponent to show how having ONLY rehab would help societal welfare.

CONTENTION 3: Jail time is necessary for ‘punishment'.
---Imagine if every time you stole, all you had to do is talk to some guy about it and pay reparations. There would be no significant factor to get it into these criminals' heads as THIS IS BAD. If nothing more than to punish for simple restitution, but furthermore, to try to create a deterrent to not do it again. By us simply letting these people off the hook with simple discussion of a counselor, they get no reason to not commit the same criminal act. Perhaps the first time they commit a misdemeanor, they get rehab, whereas the second time, they get jail time. Either way, relying on system or the other just shows that these flaws will fall through if we put too many eggs in one basket. Instead, we should spread out the burden to reduce recidivism in BOTH rehab and jail time.

CONTENTION 4: There is not one perfect system for everybody.
---Today we need to open our options to make our system negotiable and flexible. By doing this, we recognize the variance upon the offenders and shine light on a new era where our recidivism rate is not quite as high. This is what we ought to do… We ought NOT be concerned with replacement of one system for the other, rather, we ought to be concerned with putting as much power into a system that can target all criminals to try to be reintegrated into society.

CONTENTION 5: More jobs.
---Not only will more rehab mean more counselors, but on top of this, we STILL get to keep jobs that run the jail facilities. Not to mention the places that build the jails. Overall, by using both systems, we get counselor jobs, security jobs, and construction jobs.

ONTO MY OPPONENTS CASE:


---She has yet to show how replacement of jail time for rehabilitation will fulfill any sort of obligation, let alone a moral one.


---She agrees with my framework.


---I disagree, you don't have to show that rehab would be better than jail time, rather, you have to show that we have a moral obligation to exchange the current jail time with rehab.


---I agree that this is crucial, but fail to see how exchanging one system for the other accomplishes this. Cross apply my interpretation of the definition of propriety. Now, we ought not strive to fulfill one of those criteria for ‘appropriate punishment', rather, we should include what is utmost important for society. By including most, if not all of those criteria, we can directly target more offenders and give the best chance for recidivism to be decreased… and overall, for society to be benefited.



---Great! This just shows that rehab will be a good addition to the current system. Furthermore, if she is going to use cost/benefit analysis, she should at least include some costs to jail time (particularly ones that fail the moral obligation). Finally, I offer benefits to jail time:

1) Restitution
2) Deterrence
3) Set's an example
4) (in some cases) Reparations
5) Separation of dangerous people and society (a direct correlation to the value. Not to mention that many misdemeanors are aggressive. Take for example domestic violence. Would it be prudent to simply sentence that man to some rehab sessions and allow him back into the home immediately? We need to keep the appropriate punishment that jail time is in order to target situations like this).


---1. This only applies to some, not all. The recidivism rate is not 100% for a good reason.
---2. Rehab would be the icing on the cake. But since my opponent insists that we take away the cake, then societal welfare will fall, because no society can last without its cake.


---Which is why rehab would be great icing! And once again, this only applies to some, not all.


---Clarification please. Often times taking away this right to live (for a little while at least) gets it through to the criminals head. Again, the recidivism rate isn't 100%, so at least we are doing something right as of right now.


---I don't have to show that it is more effective, simply that it ought not be 'replaced'. Furthermore, I do show how it has enough effectiveness that it should stick around at the end of this debate anyway.


---Cross-apply the domestic violence example. Rehab doesn't fit everyone, nor does jail time. Sometimes we need one or the other... or even both.

In the end I leave you with this... DON'T PUT ALL OF YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET!

Thank you for the challenge and good luck with your next speech and the rest of this tournament!
Debate Round No. 1
Kachow

Pro

NC-AC

*Before direct refutation begins this has to be established – We are debating whether or not to REPLACE jail time with significant rehab. – Through out Johnicle's 1NC he advocates the use of both. This isn't practical due to the fact that the resolution in of itself doesn't follow this premise at all.
**Rehabilitation doesn't always involve the criminal sitting with a bald fat man talking about his feelings and why he ought not commit the misdemeanor again. Rehabilitation allows for a criminal to often times give back to society, whereas jail time, does not.

R.A
1 – Because of the resolution I only agree with the fact that you have to prove to my why jail time ONLY is "better" then significant rehabilitation. – My friend, you have yet to do so.

CI – Societal Welfare.
1-"cheesy rehab" – Regardless of how much you feel rehabilitation is cheesy I prove to you that 1) it upholds societal welfare 2) A significant amount of rehab is worthy compared to being locked up in a jail cell for 5-15 days.
2-One could contend [one being me] that by declaring that both jail time as well as rehabilitation should be used is the same as having "two punishments." This logically isn't acceptable because this means our "system" has no restriction.
3-The affirmative fails to uphold the value for reasons as follows 1) Jail time –in correlation with a misdemeanor isn't effective 2) There is a greater redemption factor among those who go to rehab then jail. And finally 3) refer to the fact that jail time doesn't allow for redemption to even happen. [[refer to the ** argument up top please]

CII – Propriety.
1-I'm having a problem with your C point "to separate offenders from society, where necessary" – When is necessary?

CIII:
1-Through out this whole contention you talk about the use of both. With this I would like to cross apply what I had said earlier, this isn't what the resolution calls for. That we are debating whether or not to REPLACE jail time with significant rehab, not whether or not they should co-exist equally.

CVI:
1-"Today we need to open our options to make our system negotiable and flexible." – since when? - -What motives actually target your claim?
2-"..all criminals to try to be reintegrated into society" – Well hey. I agree. However you have yet to show me the success rates of jail allowing this.

CVI:
1-we never loose these jobs. – Again refer back to the resolution, where we focus the debate around those who commit misdemeanors. Therefore due to our lovely society, jails will still be blooming with no figures of loss.

AC:

Def.
- Ought: The moral obligation, as stated in case, would be the welfare of society, for one if our society ought not replace jail with rehabilitation we wouldn't be doing what is best for this welfare. Plain and simple.

V:
-To be honest, I don't really know what you accomplish with your explanation.

C:
-I'll work off of your benefits with direct refutation
-1) Restitution – [this is where my clarification comes into play. Society looks to benefit everyone, however will them being thrown in jail, and not ticketed for the vital reasoning behind their act is what is unacceptable. – That not only do we ‘not care' about one set criminal, but are just satisfied with them ‘serving their due' in a jail cell]
2) Deterrence – [Slim, sitting in a cell for opt amount of days will not prevent a poor man from stealing again.]
3) Set's an example – [That our society isn't doing what's best for our nation? :s]
4) (in some cases) Reparations – [Success rate and likelihood is grader via rehabilitation]
5) Separation of dangerous people and society (a direct correlation to the value. Not to mention that many misdemeanors are aggressive. Take for example domestic violence. Would it be prudent to simply sentence that man to some rehab sessions and allow him back into the home immediately? We need to keep the appropriate punishment that jail time is in order to target situations like this). – [You fail to acknowledge how, when, and if for that matter if jail time actually benefits the actual criminal. You claim to use both rehabilitation and jail, but you don't factor these in. show me.]

CI:
-"Rehab would be the icing on the cake. But since my opponent insists that we take away the cake, then societal welfare will fall, because no society can last without its cake."
i.Frosting is good by itself, especially with sprinkles. – Again just refer back to the fact that we can't correlate the two. We're debating on whether or not to replace…
CII
-"…only applies to some, not all." – 1) why do we have to go through jail, just to have frosting? - My point is that when we see a flawed system for misdemeanors, we obviously, if given the chance, replace it. 2) The point is that it applies in the first place. Being that the criminal lives in the United States we ought to take care of them EVEN if they have committed a misdemeanor, further more jail doesn't allow for us to find the problem where it lies, rehabilitation does.

CIII:

[[Clarification provided in Criterion refutation]]

CVI:

"I don't have to show that it is more effective, simply that it ought not be 'replaced'. Furthermore, I do show how it has enough effectiveness that it should stick around at the end of this debate anyway."

-Here lies the problem. – Obviously you say we ought not replace, however you in the end, fail to show me the moral obligation, I provide it, you don't, your effectiveness is refuted by BATMAN. [case arguments] - Therefore Batman> Sephiroth

[[By the way, Easter is coming up - put all your eggs in a basket, maybe you'll find a fake tattoo that your especially fond of, by opening up your eggs. Do it.]]
Johnicle

Con

Thank you to my opponent for getting up way too early in the morning to post her speech in time. I hope this debate concludes well :D

Alright, I'm going to clear up the flow by going Interpretation, then Value Clash, Criterion, then some basic line-by-line.

INTERPRETATION

A) I would like the judges to pull through HER definition of ‘replace'. She defines it as, "To provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of"… by this definition, she must accept that in order for a PRO ballot to be made, we must remove jail time and "provide a substitute" (rehabilitation).

B) In order to beat the interpretation and prove her points apply (or that mine don't) she really needs to link to the resolution or link to a definition in the resolution. She fails to show how my argument of "do both" doesn't apply, and therefore, my argument (and really my entire case) must be flowed through to the end of this debate.

C) Through acceptance of this argument (do both), we get both values, both criterions, and all of her arguments therefore become irrelevant.

---I hate to sound like a policy debater, but if she fails to meet my interpretation or if she fails to disprove my interpretation, she loses this debate. So the interpretation must be settled before all other issues are weighed.

VALUE: Societal Welfare

1. I am not saying that rehabilitation does not always work, it is successful at times. However, so is jail time. If you look to the recidivism rate, it is not 100%, this shows deterrence. Furthermore, people like me do not commit crimes because I do not want to go to jail. Personally, I see jail time as a worse punishment when compared to rehab because talking to some guy isn't that big of a deal to me.

2. I think that this is better than my opponent contends. Let me show you through an example. A guy goes drinking and driving. He needs a jail cell the night (he blows a .32), however, he needs rehabilitation after that night not to drink and drive again. Now, pro is willing to shun off the jail time, however, it is just as important as the rehabilitation. However, if for some reason you believe that I have to show jail time as the better option, I must say that in the case of aggressive misdemeanors (domestic violence), it is the ONLY option.

CRITERION: Propriety/Cost Benefit Analysis

---"necessary to separate them from society is when they are a danger to society (EG: Domestic Violence… Drunk (Driver)… Bar Fighter… or even just a gun threat. Rehabilitation is not "appropriate punishment" as far as aggressive crimes. Truly, look to my interpretation as the one, two punch. 1) Jail Time looks to now… 2) Rehabilitation looks to the future. You need both of these.

Flow through the fact that Restitution is lost, Deterrence is lost, a better example is non-existent, Reparations to the victim is lost, and overall, there is no separation of society and criminal. She did attack this, but did not show rehabilitation alone could uphold all of these (particularly restitution, deterrence, and separation of society and criminal). Jail time is successful in ALL of these fronts, thus if you are weighing which is better, jail time wins.

---Furthermore, through negation of the resolution, you open a door to a possibility of fewer costs, and more benefits (she basically forgets her criterion in her last speech)

"CIII": Cross-apply Interpretation


---I actually did through the recidivism rate not being 100% and by me not being a criminal because of the built in deterrent.

(Line by line switches to AC now)


---If we have a moral obligation to the citizens, then it is best upheld through more than just replacing jail time with rehab. It needs something more to fulfill this obligation as I have shown time and again.


---For you it may be good, but what I've been arguing is that it may not be good enough for everyone. I personally want cake with my frosting (jail time AND rehab). This is why a CON vote is so necessary because more people will get value (and more will get cake :)


---They get free food, free protection, free basketball, showers everyday, a bed, a toilette. Sometimes I'm tempted to commit a crime just to enjoy these luxuries! We almost treat them too well to be honest.


---The problem is evident, you are a criminal. Why then is rehabilitation the only method to go at this. Rehab might work for some first timers, but once you begin to build your record, sometime you'll just need solid jail time. This can only be upheld on the CON side.

CVI: My moral obligation is to the society. This is upheld by giving the best shot for victims to A) get an appropriate punishment (propriety) and B) to be reintegrated back into society.

It is because of this, that Sephiroth > Batman. And I therefore urge you to vote CON!

Thank you and good luck with the rest of the debate and the rest of the tournament!
Debate Round No. 2
Kachow

Pro

Kachow forfeited this round.
Johnicle

Con

Extend my arguments... Now onto voting issues:

1. Interpretation won on the CON side.
---The only interpretation that must be flowed through is the CON's interpretation that in order to vote pro you must eliminate jail time for pure rehab (in other words you must replace). She says that this is not applicable but fails to offer a definition that showed why. In fact, her very own definition pointed to the fact that my interpretation was right ("Replaced - To provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of")... Therefore, my interpretation stands, and overall, the CON side wins. We OUGHT TO do both of these things (rehab AND jail time) because each situation is unique and each situation needs a unique way to provide the ultimate goal of the round... societal welfare.

2. Value/Criterion
---The value for this round cited as societal welfare is by far best upheld on the CON side. This first begins with my criterion of propriety. Where we can target more than just meeting rehabilitation goals, but furthermore to "denounce unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and other persons from committing offence, to separate offenders from society, to rehabilitate, to provide reparations, to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and to acknowledge harm done to the victims and the community." At the end of this debate I must ask, what is the point of only doing one of these things when we can just as easily do ALL of them? This is why jail time is necessary and that any notion to hint at exchanging it for another form of punishment just does not suffice and overall, does not provide societal welfare. As my contention 4 said, "there is not one perfect system for everybody"... not to mention more jobs will be provided :D

3. Even misdemeanors need ‘punishment' (C3)
---Strictly using rehabilitation does not provide punishment. And to be honest, if you steal something or get in a fight, you ought to be punished more than just simply talking to someone who really doesn't care about you. This does not provide retribution and does nothing for our society.

In the end, this is what is important, and I therefore urge you to recognize that we need BOTH jail time and rehabilitation. Therefore realizing that Sephiroth > Batman ;) and overall, vote CON!

Thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Nevermind... I've been persuaded to extend it to 72 hours per argument.
Posted by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
For future references, give 48 hours to post each argument (at least for this tournament)...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
KachowJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
KachowJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
KachowJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07