Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.
Debate Rounds (4)
In this debate, me and my opponent shall debate of whether or not individuals released from prison deserve the right to recieve a job. I am on Pro, meaning that I support individuals released from prison to get a job, while Con will argue 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.
Individual: A person of a specified kind. In this case, those who were recently released from prison)
Released: To be set free. In this case, being released from prison legally.
Prison: A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed.
Shouldn't: The form of should, except in a negative format. Being against discrimination in this case.
Discriminated: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. In this case, recently released prisoners looking for a job.
Job: A paid position for doing labor toward a company. In this debate, the job can be anything.
Good luck to whoever accepts the debate!
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 individuals released from prison should not be discriminated in getting a job, 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.
My oppoonent argues that individuals released from prison will always be addicted to drugs. I ask my opponent, ever heard of rehabilitation? Rehabilitation can be used for the person being released from prison, and is actually required before being relaesed; hence the reason for correctional officers. And rehabilitation does work because according to the article "Drug Rehabilitation or Revolving Door" (1) it discusses about whether it works or not. Stated in the article, rehabilitation works 85% of the time; but mainly depends on the type of drug that the individual has an addiction towards. Thats a high number, and is better than letting the prisoner not getting help and just ending up back in prison.
For the rest of my opponents argument, he argued but failed to provide evidence. Because of this, it is questionable of whether or not his claim is solid enough. Any who, I'll let my opponent continue the argument.
and after research on you're source the new york times i found something really interesting on business insider claiming that you're source is not actually published by the new york times AND does fake articles the link is here
this means that (a) you're source is discredited and (b) that that news is possibly fake.
For the final round, I like to Rebuttal my opponents final statements and state why individuals released from prison deserve a job. To begin, my opponent brings up only one source of evidence about how drug rehabilitation does not work; with his source being a quote from the drug user herself Lindsay Lohan. First off, Lindsay Lohan is the least credible source because of her being an actor and kinda insane. Secondly, in the previous round I mentioned a statistic about how drug rehabilitation worked 85% of time time. She could have been one of the few lower percentages.
Then my opponent claims that my source isn't reliable. I tried the link to see if the source was or wasn't a New York Times, and it pulled up stating that it was a New York Times. If it was or wasn't, I will resolve this issue with another source to provide how drug rehabilitation has worked. According to DrugFacts: Treatment Statistics, it gives us the percentages of those who were rehabilitated successfully, and over 50% were successful. That is a great benefit, for helping the individual heal up.
To conclude the argument, my opponent makes claims but fails to really provide any evidence. He failed to attack my own case, while his case was weak and not worth it. For this reason, I urge you to vote Pro!
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.