The Instigator
theawesomeperson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kevinopolous
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Rehabilitation ought to be valued above Retribution in the U.S. Criminal Justice System

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: 2/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 29919
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

theawesomeperson

Con

Hello to whomever my opponent may be. I have a few rules for this debate:
1.) No trolling
2.) Must be arguing for "valued above".
3.) Have fun :)

I am here to negate the resolve. I will offer the following definitions:
Rehabilitation: to restore to a former capacity or state of mind. Retribution: to give something in way of punishment. United States Criminal Justice System: The collection of laws courts and prisons that have the purpose of reducing harm to a society. Valued Above: prioritizing one, but not excluding the other.

I will present my argument round two. My opponent may post theirs round one. I look forward to seeing your argument.
Kevinopolous

Pro

Greetings, I have delared that I accept your challenge. I am quite eager in exchanging ideas with you. May the best human being win.
Debate Round No. 1
theawesomeperson

Con

To begin, since my opponent provided no editional definitions, we will run with the ones I've provided.

To start off, I will state how I will interpret this resolution. The resolve says, "valued above." This does not mean one or the other. Just one prioritized. Let us use an example: Person A is in prison for a crime. While they are in jail, they are being rehabilitated. Person B, who is rehabilitating Person A, says Person A has been rehabilitated sucessfully, but Person A still has 2 years left in hiis sentence. Now, in the affirmative world, what my opponent is arguing is that Person A ought to be let out into society because rehabilitation ought to be valued above. But what I am arguing, is that Person A ought to be kept in jail or complete the form of retribution they have been given.
I have 3 contentions to prove why I am right:
1.) Deterrents
2.) What the criminal is due
3.) Dealing with 100% of people

*another rule about this debate. Evidence is allowed, but not necessary. You should prove your point with logic,but evidence is not required.*

1. Deterrents.
Picture this: a criminal is about to murder an innocent man. Before they do so, they know what will happen if they get caught. In the Aff World: treatment and help. In the Neg World: A punishment of some sort, most likely a lifetime in jail in this given situation. Now, obviously in an "ought world", as which this resolve refers to, a criminal will get caught for their crime. It is important to realize here that rehabilitation requires every person to commit a crime in order to learn not to, whereas with retribution, it only requires ONE person to, in order to send out the message to others not to do so. This is essential for any Criminal Justice System, we need to prevent crime and we can do so with deterrents.

2. It's what the criminal is due.
Criminals commit a crime knowing they are committing a crime in most cases. So do they deserve to get away with crime? No. They are due a punishment. Something to balance out the scales of justice. They have violated someone's rights and they deserve a punishment for that. It is inexcusable not to. We need to ensure justice and give them what they are due for a crime. If after that we decide to rehabilitate them, sure, but we have to put retribution as our priority. The United States Criminal JUSTICE System should ensure justice. And rehabilitation doesn't, but retribution does: for the offender AND the victim.

3. Dealing with 100% of people.
Refer back to my intro where I have provided a situation. In this situation, if the rehab didn't work, there would still be retribution. There is an analogy called the good cop bad cop analogy. The cops can either act nice or mean to get the same answer out of a criminal, but each way works differently. Same wi this situation earlier, we'd be dealing with all ways criminals react to, but if we let the criminal out, as my opponent is arguing for, it isn't safe and it's taking a risk and guessing what the criminal reacts to.
http://cns.miis.edu...

I look forward to hearing what my opponent has to say :) Thank you.
Kevinopolous

Pro

Kevinopolous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
theawesomeperson

Con

theawesomeperson forfeited this round.
Kevinopolous

Pro

Kevinopolous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
theawesomeperson

Con

theawesomeperson forfeited this round.
Kevinopolous

Pro

Kevinopolous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
theawesomeperson

Con

theawesomeperson forfeited this round.
Kevinopolous

Pro

Kevinopolous forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.