The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,671 times Debate No: 31784
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The first round is can be for accepting or arguments, whichever the Pro wants.
The debate is on whether prisons should focus on trying to rehabilitate criminals, so both sides must try to prove that their side is better, not that both are good.
The burden of proof is equally shared.
Rehabilitation is defined as the restoration of someone to a useful place in society.
If you wish to discus who is proving what or my definition of rehabilitation, please do it in the comments before accepting.


Yes they should and for good reason you have peaty criminals who did something small like steal a TV and prison turns them into hardened criminals
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

The first problem with rehabilitation is its lack of deterrence. In a traditional prison system that focuses on punishment, criminals are deterred from committing crimes because they fear the punishment. Rehabilitation would significantly decrease the deterrent effect of prisons because it sends the message that they are going easy on crime. In a report for the National Center for Policy Analysis, Morgan Reynolds writes "On average, about 15 crimes are eliminated for each additional prisoner locked up."1 If prisons start going easier on crime, the crimes that were stopped by deterrence will be committed. In addition to this, increasing the length of prison sentences will decrease the amount of crime by 25%.2 Since lengthening prison sentences goes against rehabilitation, rehabilitating criminals would deny us this benefit.

Another problem with rehabilitation in prisons is that it actually encourages criminals to commit crime. In general, criminals come from poor communities without a real chance for much more. Rehabilitation offers them a chance to get an education and make something of their life, with the only price being a crime. For those that are already considering committing a crime, this is just icing on the cake. This also ties into my next point, which is justice.

Justice is lost in a rehabilitative prison system. Traditionally, justice is getting what one deserves, but rehabilitation does not do this. As I have said before, when a criminal commits a crime, rehabilitation would reward him with an education, whereas a conventional prison system would punish him for his crime. Justice is supposed to express society's disapproval of a criminal's action, not acceptance. There is also justice for the victim that must be looked at. When a crime is committed, the victim is hurt and requires justice to help make up for it. Helping the criminal does not give the victim justice and is not good for society.

The final problem with rehabilitation is the public opinion. According to Peter Stanford, the public opinion is that criminals are bad and will always be bad.3 This means that even after rehabilitation, the ex-criminals will not necessarily be welcomed back into society. Stanford goes on to say that when they tried to rehabilitate criminals, the public wanted nothing to do with them. If criminals cannot reenter society, then all of the rehabilitative work will have gone to waste. There is also evidence that public opinion does not support rehabilitation in general, not just criminals. Over 75% of people already think that courts are already too easy on criminals.1 If they already think that criminals are getting off easy, how much worse will it be if criminals are rehabilitated? If rehabilitation would be so heavily disliked, there is really no reason to use it.

In conclusion, prisons should not rehabilitate criminals because rehabilitation would increase the crime rate, deny justice, and go against public opinion.

2. punishment-debate/


Most people believe that criminals can't be helped but that's not true think about drug addicts do you believe they can't be helped. What I mean by peaty crimes is like a lest say for sac of argument that a kid was forced to sell drugs and the legal system was messed up (another debate) he was convicted without rehab he would be turned into a "gang banger" or drug dealers now hes a terrible criminal and it started by being force to sell drugs. Back to rehabilitation to not let people have another shot is like if you got a bad grade on a test and you couldn't correct it. Also even without rehabilitation criminals aren't accepted into society why not let them get help.
Debate Round No. 2


Let's start on the Pro's arguments.

First, he says "Most people believe that criminals can't be helped but that's not true." He concedes that public opinion is against criminals, but provides no evidence that rehab works. Second, he asks if drug addicts can't be helped. While I do agree that drug addicts can be helped, that is not the point of this debate. This debate is about criminals in general, not only drug addicts. Third, my opponent comes up with a hypothetical situation where a kid is "turned into a "gang banger" or drug dealers" but provides no proof or reason why this is true. Fourth, the Pro compares prison without rehabilitation to getting a bad grade on a test and not being able to change it, but that is the way life works. If you do something bad (not studying/stealing) you get the consequence (a bad grade/prison time). Finally, the Pro says that criminals aren't accepted into society with or without rehabilitation, but my point with that argument was to show that rehabilitation has no benefits, not to prove prison as good.

The Pro does not contend my argument about deterrence, so it can be assumed that he agrees with it. The same can be said about my incentive to commit crime and justice arguments. Because the Pro has no substantial arguments and my arguments go unopposed, I should win this debate.


I Stated that the kid is turned into a "gang banner" or drug dealer because he didn't get help you have people who do basically do nothing get terribly messed up and FORCE to join gang and stuff and rehabilitation is a working system drug attictes have a 90% ish success rate why not give prisoners a chance
Debate Round No. 3


I still don't think the Pro really understands what rehabilitation is, even though I defined it at the beginning. Criminal rehabilitation is attempting to giving a criminal an education and skills needed to succeed in the world, not just drug rehab.

On the Pro's arguments, everything here is based on his hypothetical situation, not on real evidence, so it doesn't really matter in this debate. His statistic of 90% success is nice, but also unsupported. If you can find a reliable source for this I am willing to accept it, but until then it is invalid.

The Pro still does not deny any of my claims about deterrence, incentive to commit crime, justice, or public opinion, so I win this debate.


I will just state that you are basically giving up on humans and let me know if you can live with that
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
what a great idea.
i don't think any body would not like that.
Posted by Gondun 4 years ago
I can live just fine with that if it means reducing crime and saving justice.
No votes have been placed for this debate.