The Instigator
crackofdawn_Jr
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LightC
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
LightC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 790 times Debate No: 7290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

crackofdawn_Jr

Pro

I affirm that I am PRO for the resolution above.

::CONTETNION 1::

Preventing Further Crime: Once someone does a little crime like petty theft I believe they are more likely to move up to bigger things like robbery, drugs, and murder. That's why we can't just shut these people up in jail for a couple a months and let them go. We need to rehabilitate these individuals to prevent further crimes.

::CONTENTION 2::

Small Jail Time Doesn't Work: What is the point of jail? It's to get dangerous criminals away from the rest of society in a safe and "humane" place. It's a punishment, yes, but it's not really suppose to teach criminals a lesson. That's why for the more "minor criminals" it would be best to rehabilitate them to be a functioning member of society rather than throw them in a jail cell for a couple months then throw them right back out on the street.

::CONTENTION 3::

Jail Hurts Job Chances: There's a couple things needed in life to make sure you can take care of yourself. One of those things is having a job. If someone doesn't have a job or has a bad one they are more likely to turn to crime to make more money. When someone goes to jail not only does this hurt there resume but it also alienates them from society. With rehabilitation it is more likely that someone will hire them and therefore keep them out of trouble.

That's all for now, I'll post more points as the rounds progress.

Good luck.
LightC

Con

I'll present the NC, then move to the AC

[Observations]

1. The resolution states "replaced", therefore we are not debating prioritization. Rather we are debating the absolutes of both sides.
2. The affirmative must prove the following burdens:

a. Prove greater externalities on the AC
b. Prove that rehabilitation works
c. Prove that rehabilitation ought to be valued as superior

3. US framework

The negative values justice within a US framework, which can be defined as giving each their due. The obligation of a criminal system is to provide justice to criminals. The US punishment tenets states that the first goal of punishment within the US system is "retribution." Therefore, the maintain consistency within the US system, we must look to retribution as the brightline. Thus, the value of justice is achieved by the criterion of Retribution. Retribution has multiple links to justice:

First, criminals can only receive their due when they are punished for criminal acts.
Second, justice is best achieved when the criminal pays their debt back to society.

Contention I: Jail is more in line with retribution

Retribution is when a criminal receives punishment for a criminal act. Jail is the only way to enact this retribution. Rehabilitation is categorized as a "restorative" mechanism within the justice system, and is not retribution. Under the penal tenets, restoration is the last value within the system, whereas retribution is listed as the #1 priority. Therefore, to remain consistent within the US framework, we must value retribution first, which can only be done if the jail system is amintained.

Contention II: Rehabilitation is counterproductive

Rehabilitation has failed in the past, and is actually counter productive. According to the Justice Department, 70% of criminals that are rehabilitated cause recidivism. Clearly rehabilitation causes backlash agaisnt society, thus why should we value it?

Moving to the AC:

C1 - Preventing further Crime

I have 3 responses:

First, link my above stat which chows that rehabilitation is ineffective.

Second, this argument is non-unique, in the way he poses it. Yes, jail is only for a time but that doesn't prove that rehabilitation works to incapacitate further crimes from occurring.

Third, even if you don't but my 2 other arguments you can turn this point. Rehabilaition actually creates negative backlash on the fact that rehabilitation has no means to hold people, and it is ineffective. Thus, he actually makes a negative externality on society.

C2 - Small Jail Time does not work

I have 2 responses:

First, he never proves his premise. He just asserts that it wouldn't work.

Second, again non-unique on the fact that he never proves why rehabilitation would work.

C3 - Jail Hurts Job Chances

I have 2 reposes:

First, on your record it states "criminal," not if you were jailed or rehabilitated. The manager of a job would not know the difference, so your argument is flawed on an underlying basis.

Second, "With rehabilitation it is more likely that someone will hire them and therefore keep them out of trouble." <-- When did you once prove this logically or empirically?

[overview arguments]

1. He never once proves at all in his case why rehabilitation works, he just asserts it does
2. His case lacks solvency

[Important Notes]

1. "I'll post more points as the rounds progress" --> You cannot let him do this, it is 100% abusive, and the round would have no constructive value. The posed points are the points for the round, nothing more.

2. He never proposed a value or value criterion, thus my value structure is the only brightline for the round. This has 2 impacts:

First, if he does not link in to the structure he automatically loses (following LD debate style)
Second, he can propose a CP and thus would not need to link in, but he didn't in the AC thus he cannot propose a CP for the round.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen and esteemed judges
Debate Round No. 1
crackofdawn_Jr

Pro

crackofdawn_Jr forfeited this round.
LightC

Con

Extend my framework [definitions, observations, value structure], my contentions and my rebuttal against his case.
Debate Round No. 2
crackofdawn_Jr

Pro

I am sorry but I cannot debate this subject as PRO. I know a truly good debater would be able to debate something that he's against, but I just can't on this particular subject. The problem is that I am CON to what is being said and I can't think of an argument that actually mean's something for the other side. I'm sorry but I officially FORFEIT this round and this debate.
LightC

Con

alright, cool.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
I'll take you up on this Light C
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I won't be able to write an argument tonight, and probably won't tomorrow. If I can make it Friday I will but just know that I might have to forfeit the next round.
Posted by TheRaven 7 years ago
TheRaven
CP means counter-plan, such as if the res was "the US ought to join the ICC" my counter plan on the neg could be "we should join b/c doing this(whatever my plan is) would be even better"

it really doesn't matter as his use of counter plan was wrong- as he states below ur the aff and cant have a counter plan.
Posted by crackofdawn_Jr 7 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
What does AP and CP mean?
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
lol, strike what I said about the CP, I forgot he was affirmative, and obviously aff's cant propose CP's
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
crackofdawn_JrLightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
crackofdawn_JrLightCTied
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