The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
MoonDragon613
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Resolved: In the United States, minor 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  
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: 3/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,657 times Debate No: 3077
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (11)

 

Johnicle

Pro

READ BEFORE JUDGING/DEBATING… this is intended to be a Lincoln Douglas debate with value and criterion. This LD debate is basically meant to ask which is more important, hard core punishment, or rehab… With that, I will begin my case…

-Thousands of men have entered and exited and re-entered and exited once again. A repeat offender. What is it that makes them do that? Why is it that we continue to try what isn't working. Which is why I must agree with…

-Resolved- In the United States, minor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

This leads me to my value for this round…

I. Value- Societal Welfare
-Within this round, the only question is what provides a better solution for the society. What you have to see is that when we use rehabilitation over just a night in jail, they will commit crimes less often and if I can prove that, I will save tax money and the use of crimes therefore increasing societal welfare or the good of the society. In attempting to achieve this, there is only one way to achieve this within this resolution…

II. Criterion- Appropriate Punishment
-It is simple to make the connection of appropriate punishment as being significant rehabilitation. What you have to see is that when we get appropriate punishment, then societal welfare is right around the corner. The difference between Pro and Con in this resolution is simply the method of punishment. In most cases, a night in jail is not significant enough to stop from future misbehavior, but if you put them into rehab clinics, it is punishment and it does teach them why they should not act inappropriately in the future.

III. Minor Jail time is not an appropriate punishment.

A. Minor Jail time is not a great enough incentive to stop repeat offenders.
-What you have to see is that while spending a day or two in prison is a slap on the wrist, it is not a great enough incentive to not try it again. In the end of due process, what the society truly wants is fewer crimes, not hard core punishment such as jail time would do. In other words, in order to truly support societal welfare, we must have appropriate punishment such as significant rehabilitation.

B. Minor Jail time does not fit the crime committed.
-While many people would insist on a day in prison being enough of a punishment for perhaps shoplifting or a DUI… it simply is not. When you were growing out, your parents would be more concerned that you learned your lesson rather than you being punished, but simply put, minor jail time does not fit any sort of crime big or small, it doesn't teach anything.

IV. Significant rehabilitation is an appropriate punishment.

A. Significant rehabilitation is a punishment for the common criminal.
-What do you think is the last thing that a common criminal would want to happen after being caught doing a crime? Being talked to about it of course! If there is ever an incentive to not commit a crime, it isn't a bad meal on a stiff bed (such would be the case of minor jail time) but it would be 20 hours of talking to awkward councilors instead. Therefore, significant rehab has all the benefits of minor jail time.

B. Significant rehabilitation gives a chance for the common criminal to be a regular citizen again.
-The final and most important argument in my case is simply that rehab does give a chance for the common criminal to finally be a good citizen (thus supporting societal welfare). It may even be the first time in these peoples lives that they actually understand why you do or do not do certain things. What you have to see is that even if I prove that one more person is saved by my significant rehabilitation, and then I prove that fewer of the costs will appear.

-In the end- The appropriate punishment at the end of this case and round simply has to be significant rehabilitation. It offers few of the costs (IV B) and all of the benefits (IV A). It offers a chance for common criminals to become common citizens thus increasing the societal welfare and overall increasing general moral goals and standards. Affirmative is positive at every angle you look at it so after all of this you have to see that: In the United States, minor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation… so please vote Affirmative.

Thank You!
MoonDragon613

Con

Let me begin by thanking you for hosting this debate. I hope this to be both interesting and fiercely contested series of rounds. Usually I'm not this polite, but I found your arguments interesting (though fundamentally flawed) and so I'll tip my hat to you as a show of respect.

I. Value – Justice
The system we are discussing is the Criminal Justice system. Needless to say, the validity and respectability of the Criminal Justice system depends on its delivery of Justice. In fact, I would go so far as to say the Only question at hand here is which method provides greater justice, prison time or rehabilitation. Justice is a more appropriate value for this round than Societal welfare.

II. Criterion – Appropriate Punishment
Interestingly enough though, with all that being said, the argument shifts back to the issue of Appropriate Punishment. But here, we are now looking at whether or not punishment is Appropriate, and by Appropriate we mean Just. And the fact of the matter is, rehabilitation is not a Just form of punishment.

III. Rehabilitation is not a Just form of punishment

A. Outside the moral jurisdiction of the state government
Rehabilitation first of all is unjust because it is outside the bounds of the Social Contract. Society has the right, obligation in fact, to incarcerate those who violate the social contract through actions such as theft. But for society to "rehabilitate" those who commit minor social infractions, it would have to pass moral judgment on certain life style choices. Take for example the common misdemeanor of prostitution. The government has the right to short term incarceration, but my opponent wants the government to instead "teach" them that prostitution is wrong, and then "fix" them to make them "regular" citizens.

B. Outside the realm of government responsibility
Secondly, rehabilitation is outside the realm of government responsibility. No organization has the right to incarcerate an individual, except the state and federal judicial system. That is their responsibility, levying fines and incarceration. Teaching people how to live their lives? That is the responsibility of our state education system during youth, the responsibility of parents, and of course the responsibility of people themselves. Not the State and Federal criminal justice system. The usurpation of authority, and jurisdiction, that belongs elsewhere is also unjust, making it an inappropriate punishment.

IV. Jail time, even for misdemeanors (under 1 year) is a Just form of punishment

A. Foreknowledge
Among the reasons why it is just to jail people for misdemeanors is foreknowledge. Everyone knows that all crimes come with the penalty of fines or a prison term. People know if you shop lift and you're convicted, you face a short period of time in prison.
(Note: this does not preclude rehabilitation from being just. It simply states prison terms are just. Rehabilitation is not just for the reasons listed in section III).

B. Comparative
Short prison terms for misdemeanors are just because they are reasonable responses to acts of misdemeanors. Misdemeanors violate the social contract, but to a lesser degree than felonies. Felonies carry significant prison terms. Misdemeanors therefore are expected to carry lighter prison terms.

Rebuttal:
Furthermore, even if we accept booth the value of Societal Welfare and the criteria of appropriate punishment, Minor jail time is still an appropriate punishment while rehabilitation is not.

Rebuttal (III): Minor Jail time IS an appropriate punishment (Societal Welfare)
A. The Threat of minor jail time is an incentive to stop offenders.
People do not commit misdemeanors because even though the prison time is short, there is still a corresponding prison time. That's why I don't steal from the convenience store down the block (although come to think of it, considering how much dating costs nowadays it might be a more efficient way for me to get laid). If we get rid of jail time, people would be more inclined to commit crime, which makes minor jail time appropriate since it discourages crime, thus good for society.

B. Minor Jail time Does fit the crime.
My opponent claims minor jail time teaches nothing. I contend it teaches quite a lot. Frankly, despite the power of television and movies, and the human imagination, it is still ultimately impossible for people to imagine what life in prison is like. People who commit misdemeanors get sent to prison for short terms. They then learn what life in prison is like. This increase in knowledge is quite good for society; especially since it then allows people to imagine how years of prison time would feel.

Rebuttal (IV): Significant rehabilitation is NOT an appropriate punishment

A. Significant rehabilitation is NOT a punishment for the common criminal.
My opponent claims he would rather be thrown in jail than 20 hours of talking to awkward councilors. I wish that was the case. But let's be honest, who are we kidding? Since neither of us have evidence on this point, I for one am happy to let the audience decide on this point. If you had to choose between a prison time for a week and some number of sessions with an awkward councilor, which would You choose?

B. Significant rehabilitation will NOT give a chance for the common criminal to be a regular citizen "again".
Begin by cross applying my argument in III A. Then think about this, my opponent is confident that rehabilitation is possible, and furthermore, it's implementation, if possible, is good for society. But as we're all very aware, our state governments are not made of money. And money spent on rehabilitation is money taken away from education or economic development. The statement "even if I prove that one more person is saved by my significant rehabilitation and then I prove that fewer of the costs will appear" is fundamentally flawed since it assumes unlimited State resources. It's the same as saying, why don't we buy every student a state of the art laptop. If I show that one student's performance improves, then I prove it's for societal good. Or if I say why don't we put a police station on every block. If I show one crime is averted, then I prove it's for societal good.

And furthermore, money spent on rehabilitation could very easily be money thrown away. "It may be the first time in these peoples lives that they actually understand why you do or do not do certain things". Or it may be not. What is the probability that "serious this "significant rehabilitation" would be effective? Can we talk people out of lack of economic opportunities? Can we talk people out of their natural tendency towards aggression and violence? Can we really talk people out of brawling after overdrinking at a brawl? Without knowing the details of this "significant rehabilitation", there is no way to measure its effectiveness, and in order to claim it's for the societal good, ultimately it is crucial to measure effectiveness.

And for the mentioned reasons I am proud to oppose the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

First off I would just like to thank my opponent for taking this debate. After reading your first post, I can tell that this will indeed be a great debate that I am looking forward to see unfold. Good luck… with that, I will begin my rebuttal against my opponent's case…

I.The Value of Justice

1. The definition of Justice
Since my opponent never defined justice, I will take the liberty of doing so. Justice is defined from dictionary.com (American Heritage Dictionary) as…
"The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law"

2. The Value of Societal Welfare upholds Justice
It is simple to see that if the society has a high sense of "welfare" and the general good is high, you will see the most possible people getting their "due reward." What you will also see within this resolution is that whoever proves that they are keeping the greatest amount of welfare/justice for the society will win this round. The major difference is the safety provided. In other words, which form of "punishment" or "justice" will provide the most safety and therefore provide the most societal welfare.

3. The Value of Justice is most gained on the Pro side with significant rehabilitation.
(from http://www.criminon.org...)
Basically, what I advocate on the Pro side is systems of rehab specified for the common criminal. Simply by voting pro… you open the door for having the possibility of saving criminal acts by happening, not by putting them in jail for a day or two and hoping they get better, but by going through logical programs made SPECIFICALLY for the common criminal. I urge you to read the Criminon program but if time is an issue I will sum it up for you… The program "Criminon" actually is an international program meant to increase the common criminal's "self-respect" by targeting specific issues such as drugs, family issues, and even common sense practices. Therefore, making significant rehabilitation as the greatest CHANCE for what the society's true goal ought to be… no crimes. Therefore giving the most "due reward" to the most society members thus having the most Justice on Pro.

II.The Criterion of Appropriate Punishment

1. The accepted Criterion for this round is gained on the Pro side
Since we both have the same criterion, you have to see that whoever gains this Criterion and ACTUALLY has appropriate punishment that gains the welfare for the general society and gives due award to the most people wins this round. If you Cross apply the program of Criminon to coincide with this argument, you will see the capabilities of significant rehabilitation. Let's quickly take a look to what jail time does. Basically, what you have to ask yourself is "what does prison do?" The answer is quite obvious; it forces people to be locked up in a room with or without their consent to receive their "due" of committing a crime. Now re-look at that statement, what you will see is that "significant rehabilitation" will give the same due except it will keep the interest of the society in mind when trying to actually fix the problem instead of punishing the problem, which makes the appropriate punishment in this round significant rehabilitation.

2. Jail time is ineffective in fixing the problem.
Throughout this round, you will find yourself looking at two options and trying to pick the better of the two. I have shown you the attempts that significant rehabilitation offers, but now let's look to the effectiveness of jail time itself.
----From (http://www.angus-reid.com...)
Although this article only specifies young people, it still does give good general information on the effectiveness of jail time on youth. The study asks, "Do you think sending young people to prison for non-violent crimes is effective or not effective in reducing the likelihood of them re-offending?"… The percentages were then given that only 21% had any effectiveness, 66% having no effectiveness, and 14% we don't know if it was effective. What this study shows us is that jail time (especially for youth) are not having any affect of changing them for the better. This is a major problem because we are not making the attempt of changing them but merely of punishing them. Rehabilitation must be made the appropriate punishment.

III.Rehabilitation is not a Just form of Punishment.-->

Simply what I have to say against this is what is just? How does it tie in to justice? Is rehabilitation more or less "just" than jail time? If so… how? If it is not just, does that mean it we shouldn't replace the jail time with the rehabilitation? In other words, I basically need a little more of this argument and how it supports anything on the con side.

IV.Jail time is a just form of punishment.-->

Again, I don't know how this ties into this round, a little clarification would be nice with maybe a definition of just perhaps. But for argumentative purposes I would just like to point out a version of what is just and that is intentions. Look to what each form of punishment intends to accomplish and then you will find what is truly just. Jail time (which is undoubtedly just meant to punish) and significant rehabilitation (which is meant to have a form of punishment against the criminal and gives the chance and intention to save the criminal). I personally see the significant rehab as what is more just.

Simply with all of these arguments, I have proven that minor jail time truly should be exchanged for significant rehabilitation. Since it gives the greatest amount of societal welfare by giving the most people justice by applying the true appropriate punishment, you must see that: In the United States, minor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation… so please vote pro!
Thank You
MoonDragon613

Con

Thank you for the compliment, and likewise I can tell that already we have a great debate going. I hope it stays interesting and a good read for both each other and the audience. With that I begin the Negative Rebuttal.

Beginning with question of which value is more appropriate, Justice or Societal Welfare in the scope of the criminal Justice system.

1. Justice versus Societal Welfare
In the case construct, I stated that "the validity and respectability of the Criminal Justice system depends on its delivering of Justice." This does not go directly addressed by my opponent. I take it therefore it is conceded that Justice is a better value by which we determine the appropriate punishment for criminals.

II. The Criterion for Appropriate Punishment --- Looking from the point of view of Justice

A. Rehabilitation is outside the Jurisdiction of the State, and thus is an unjust approach towards criminal behavior.

My opponent writes that he "needs a little more of this argument". He asks "how does it tie in to justice" And so I'll oblige.
Justice is, as I mentioned, a complex issue. But a key element to the nature of justice is Jurisdiction. We forbid people from taking revenge into their own hands because they do not have the Jurisdiction to mete justice. Principals are allowed to discipline the behavior of students on school grounds, but only Parents are allowed to discipline children for what they do outside of school. For Principals to punish a student for actions he takes while at home is Unjust.

Jurisdiction is a critical component of Justice. And Rehabilitation, because it falls Outside the Jurisdiction of the State, fails to fulfill the value of Justice.

(Reference to III A. in Round 1. Note: argument was unchallenged)

B. Jail time Is a Just form of punishment

My opponent concedes that Jail Time is a just form of punishment. Although he said "I personally see the significant rehab as what is more just", he by implication admits that Jail time is still a just form of punishment, even if, in his opinion, not the most just of punishments.

---------------
The value of this debate is Justice. So if Jail Time is more Just than Rehabilitation, Jail Time should be the accepted form of punishment. I have shown in II A. (and III A in Round 1) that Rehabilitation is Unjust because it falls outside the State's jurisdiction. My opponent has conceded that Jail time Is a just form of punishment, and therefore, Jail Time is Just while Rehabilitation is not. Therefore Jail Time is the appropriate form of punishment.
----------------

However, to cover all bases, I will address the issue of societal welfare. Let us assume that societal welfare is a better value than Justice in determining the correct punishment for the Criminal Justice system.

III. Forced Rehabilitation is against the societal welfare
My opponent writes that by voting pro "you open the door for having the possibility of saving criminal acts from* happening".
However in doing so he makes 2 mistakes. First of all, a Forced rehabilitation is very different from an optional rehabilitation. Am I against rehabilitation? Of course not. If juveniles wish to enter rehabilitation of their own free will, it's a right they are entitled to. But to Force juveniles into rehabilitation is an altogether different matter. There is no reason to suspect forced rehabilitation would have a high rate of success. And furthermore, brainwashing unwilling inmates and fostering in them a belief that Lord Xenu hydrogen bombed aliens into oblivion on earth 75 million years ago, is not exactly how I would go around promoting the societal good. Because that is how Criminon "rehabilitates" inmates. Recruiting them to become scientologists. Forced Rehabilitation is exactly what Cambodia did to its political prisoners, what China does to its political prisoners.

The second mistake is that even if rehabilitation programs rehabilitate, referencing Rebuttal (IV) B in round 1, "out state governments are not made of money". We can reduce crime even more effectively than rehabilitation if we put a camera on every street corner. We can reduce crime even more effectively if we increase the number of police officers 10 fold. There are countless ways we can effectively eliminate crime if we had enough money. But as I said, state governments are not made out of money. Forced rehabilitation is an expensive project. The money could be redirected towards better education, more police officers, and so on and so forth.

IV. Jail is good for societal welfare.
My opponent claims jail time is ineffective and therefore not good for societal welfare. To argue this, my opponent cites an article about a poll which takes place in England. The poll asks people what they "think" is effective. Besides being in another country, people's expressed opinion on the effectiveness of jail time probably doesn't actually correlate with the actual effectiveness of jail time. My opponent maintains that jail time does not discourage crime. I disagree. My opponent offers no reasonable evidence and so jail time discourages crime still stands.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

I'll just basically be attacking all of his points straight down from his last speech...

Off of 1 (Justice versus Societal Welfare)-->

1. Societal Welfare is the greatest value.
As I stated in my last speech, if you achieve societal welfare, than more people receive their due, thus having more justice. But if you get justice, that does not guarantee the welfare of society... therefore, my value is the greater of the two as mine encompasses both values.

2. Values are about who achieves them, not which is better.
Simply within this round, it is about who ACHIEVES the greatest value, not who claims they do. Within this round, you will see that since I give the greatest chance for rehabilitation, I truly do give more due and truly do achieve more societal welfare because of the chances given by organizations such as Criminon.

Off of II (The Criterion for Appropriate Punishment)-->

1. The appropriate punishment in this debate is Significant Rehabilitation.
Throughout this round, the appropriate punishment is simply significant rehabilitation not only because it gives the greatest chance for BOTH values, but it also actually looks more to just punishment, but also punishment AND lesson learned. And with twice the "due", you have twice the values.

Off of A (Rehabilitation is outside the Jurisdiction of the State, and thus is an unjust approach towards criminal behavior.) -->

1. The goal of affirmative is to make significant rehabilitation within the Jurisdiction.
This argument simply proves nothing on the Con side. Rehab isn't in the jurisdiction of the state... well, why not? This debate is all about making and societal welfare the best, and with programs like Criminon, significant rehab should be in the jurisdiction and if you vote pro, it becomes jurisdiction for minor crimes.
(this argument goes against all jurisdiction arguments)

Off of B (Jail time Is a Just form of punishment)-->

1. Flow through previous questions/significant rehabilitation is more just
In my last speech, I asked how what is just makes it ought to be replaced... ("Simply what I have to say against this is what is just? How does it tie in to justice? Is rehabilitation more or less "just" than jail time? If so… how? If it is not just, does that mean it we shouldn't replace the jail time with the rehabilitation?"............) This went unargued or unanswered, please flow this through for the pro side. Especially the question of how significant rehab is unjust. Being just is basically doing what is right and when you compare the two options of punishment, you will see that the right thing is giving another chance for minor crimes. Thus making the more "just" option pro.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
(the argument in between the dotted lines about the values)
As I just stated, it is more just to give a second chance. Also, you will see that justice and just are different. AND societal welfare must still be seen as the greatest value (cross-apply my first argument in this speech)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Off of III (Forced Rehabilitation is against the societal welfare)-->

(General Arguments)

1. Forced Rehabilitation supports societal welfare.
Since significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab (as this argument has gone unargued) you will see that with less crimes, there is more societal welfare.

2. Con never connects his explanation to societal welfare specifically.
Simply to disprove this argument, look to his example of "brainwashing unwilling inmates and fostering in them a belief that Lord Xenu hydrogen bombed aliens into oblivion on earth 75 million years ago" is absolutely ridiculous. SIGNIFICANT REHAB DOES NOT EQUAL BRAINWASHING BELIEFS ABOUT LORD XENU... Significant rehab instead supports teaching of laws and most importantly why and how they should be followed. Although I am not intensely informed about rehab methods, I am fairly sure it does not consist of brainwashing or anything about Lord Xenu. In other words, you have to see that societal welfare was only connected by this outrageous example. Instead, I challenge my opponent to connect the possibility of helping the criminal to worse societal welfare... My guess is that it will not be as bad for the societal welfare.

3. The only people that significant rehabilitation hurts is the criminal.
Since the resolution says "on balance"... I will only look at general concepts. But when looking to who will be hurt by the rehab is the criminal. Forcing them to do rehab doesn't hurt anyone else. In fact it helps them as they get their "due" and get their societal welfare. Also, since the criminal have the chance for getting hurt (as minor jail time will also do) you will see that they get their punishment (or due) through significant rehab WHILE giving them a chance to improve to a regular citizen.

(specifically off of mistake 1 of forced rehab) (not willing to rehab)

4. People not willing to work with the rehabilitation efforts still deserve their chance.
Why is it that when someone is unwilling, we give up. If you are going to do the right thing in this round (the true just thing) you will vote Pro by NOT giving up on people. I know that in the past, my mind has been changed. For example, I used to prefer Burger King over McDonald's. But with time and a few meals at Burger King, I now actually prefer eating at "BK." It's the same thing with criminals... if we work with them and show how society is supposed to be run, eventually they will see the good (or the better food) and see that this is where they should be, not committing crimes. Vote pro....... give the criminals their chance.

(specifically off of mistake 2 of forced rehab) (money)

5. In order to support the values, money ought to not be a concern.
If we are going to get EITHER value, we should not be worried about money. Jail time still costs money, but we still use it. Rehab costs money... but we OUGHT to use that for minor crimes. If cheaper is better... fine, lets stop getting iPod's, let's stop getting pepsi/coke. What you will see though is that the off-brands work, but we OUGHT to get the better of the two if we can. ESPECIALLY when dealing with justice AND societal welfare.

6. I don't have to prove it can be replace, but simply that it ought to.
The resolution ONLY specifies what OUGHT to happen. For example, I ought to donate to the poor, but that doesn't mean I will or that I am capable of doing so. In other words, if we are unable of switching to significant rehab doesn't mean that we ought not to. We OUGHT to try to pursue this other option since it does give the greatest chance for rehab and both values (Criminon).

7. Con has offered no figures.
Simply put, con says we can't afford this but offers no evidence of budgets, rehab costs, or jail time savings.

Off of IV (Jail is good for societal welfare)-->

1. Pro evidence outweighs Con evidence.
If Con thinks that jail time is so much more effective than significant rehab... Prove it. I provide evidence (that was found extremely quickly since is it well spread on the internet and well accepted as there are a lot of repeat offenders) while my opponent merely assumes jail time works. Evidence flows Pro.

2. Attempts of Pro outweighs Cons attempts.
What makes Pro so much better is the attempts that it makes to actually rehabilitate the criminals. Again, flow through (as it went unargued) the intent of the two systems. Jail time attempts to punish... Significant rehab... attempts to punish WHILE rehabilitating. The attempts on Pro are so much greater, that it will by chance increase justice and societal welfare.

-In the end- Simply put, the wisest form of "due" is significant rehabilitation over minor jail time, therefore, it ought to be replace and I urge you to vote Pro.

Thank You
MoonDragon613

Con

I. Justice versus Societal Welfare
My value premise for the Criminal Justice system if Justice. My opponent's is Societal Welfare. Since mine is more relevant, more integral to the integrity of the Criminal Justice system, my value premise should be used to evaluate the round.

My opponent claims that achieving societal welfare results in greater justice because if you achieve societal welfare, "more people receive their due". He supports this by saying "It is simple to see that if the society has a high sense of "welfare" and the general good is high, you will see the most possible people getting their "due reward."" --- Well I for one am too "simple" to see why a high sense of "welfare" results in the receipt of "due reward". Many Republicans out there would join me on this =P. Until my opponent actually proves this (which he hasn't all debate despite repeating this multiple times), he does not have a case to support his value premise.

II. Appropriate Punishment

In response to my argument that rehabilitation is not within the Jurisdiction of the state, my opponent writes "... well, why not?"
It appears he has chosen not to read my arguments ... yet expects me to read his. Fortunately his is non existent so it makes for a quick read. And now, having done so, I'll respond to his "... well, why not?" (again)

"For society to "rehabilitate" those who commit minor social infractions, it would have to pass moral judgment on certain life style choices.Take for example the common misdemeanor of prostitution. The government has the right to short term incarceration, but my opponent wants the government to instead "teach" them that prostitution is wrong, and then "fix" them to make them "regular" citizens." (See III. Opening Argument)

Just because my opponent wants rehabilitation to be within the moral jurisdiction of the State Criminal Justice System does not make it so. Well why not is irrelevant, even though I answered anyway. In the interest of Justice, the State has a duty to act within its boundaries and jurisdictions.

-------
My opponent claims that I did not answer whether rehabilitation is more or less "just" than jail time. He also states that I argued that rehabilitation is not just because it is outside the State's jurisdiction. He seems to be confusing himself.

He then sounds even more confused saying "Also you will see that justice and just are different." Of course they're not. Justice is a noun. Just is an adjective. But them being different doesn't prevent you from stating the obvious: Justice is just.
------

III. Forced Rehabilitation is against the societal welfare

At this point discussing societal welfare is unnecessary. But for the sake of argument I'll indulge my opponent.
1. "Significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab"
Sure, I'll grant that. Significant crime reduction efforts gives the greatest chance for crime reduction too.
2. You will see that with less crimes, there is more societal welfare.
With all things being equal, of course, less crimes almost certainly leads to greater societal welfare.

Of course ... all this assumes that forced rehabilitation has no other consequences.

"SIGNIFICANT REHAB DOES NOT EQUAL BRAINWASHING BELIEFS ABOUT LORD XENU"
I'm not sure if this is willful ignorance or just unintended oversight ... but my opponent does know that Criminon is a subset of the Church of Scientology and in addition to "rehabilitation" it also "recruits" people to become Scientologists right?

The simple fact of the matter is, just because a method is good at stopping crime does not necessarily make it good for societal welfare. In fact, very often methods good for reducing crime also happen to be bad, sometimes very bad for societal welfare.

Examples: Torture. Spying. Wiretapping. Police State.
The difference between forcing people to become "model", "respected" citizens who follow the "correct" behaviors of society and offering them the opportunity to learn is as wide a gap as between the freedoms of our Democracy and the tyranny of a Police State. Rehabilitation is wonderful. Forced Rehabilitation is tyranny.

IV. "The only thing that significant rehabilitation hurts is the criminal"
A fundamental principle of economics is the notion of "opportunity cost". Paying for forced rehabilitation, besides hurting the subject, also hurts the general population. Where do you get the money to pay for rehabilitation? You take it out of other social services. My opponent says "money ought to not be a concern", but at the same time he espouses Societal Welfare. I'm allowed to say money is not a concern because it is not when it comes to Justice. But when it comes to Societal Welfare, money is a critical component, because to institute this forced rehabilitation, we would need money drawn from other sources, and Unless my opponent overcomes the burden of evidence to show that the money spent on forced rehabilitation could not be better spent on education or health care, he CANNOT maintain that forced rehabilitation is good for the social welfare.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

Before I begin, I would just like to thank my opponent for a round well debated. This is definitely one of the better rounds if not the best round on this website that I have been in (especially since it was in the form of LD). It has truly been an honor debating at this caliber and I can't wait to see what the voters think. With that, I will begin with hitting my opponents arguments from last round and will then state why I think that I win this round,

I. The values of Societal Welfare and Justice.
My opponent keeps trying to prove which value is higher. But, what you have to see is that he fails to prove how he gets them better than me. The only thing that makes values valuable is if you achieve them and in this round, I achieve BOTH values. Through the Criterion of Appropriate Punishment, I get the values as I give the greatest chance to protect the society. My opponent HAS agreed with me that I have the greatest chance to rehab... by this admission alone I win because to support any sort of Justice and to support any sort of societal welfare, we must make the greatest chance to rehab the people that need it... the criminals. Therefore, I achieve societal welfare (which does happen to be the better value as it gets justice AND MORE), and I get justice as people are "due" their better life which scopes the criminals and the average citizen.

II. Appropriate Punishment is gained on the Pro side.
Again, by him admitting that I have the better chance to rehab the criminals, you will see that the appropriate punishment is on the Pro side. This is because we are not replacing jail time for MAJOR crimes but MINOR crimes (as the resolution specifies when it says minor jail time)... Simply put, the criterion is meant to show who achieves the values better, and since I give the more appropriate punishment, I achieve the values all the more.

-->(specifically against some of his explanation)... 2 things, 1... I do read your postings and to prove it, here is me responding to specific explanation... 2. The whole point in this round is to make significant rehabilitation part of the jurisdiction of the state. He argues that it is not presently in the jurisdiction of the state, even though this may be true (I'm actually not sure if it is or not), it does NOT mean you should vote Con, instead, you should vote Pro on the fact that rehab SHOULD be a part of the Jurisdiction as it DOES give the greatest chance for rehab and it DOES achieve both values within this round. I do not contend remove the jail time as a punishment, but simply that a day or two in jail (minor jail time) should be replaced with something that will actually do some good, significant rehabilitation.

-------------
-->This round is not about which punishment is more just or not. It simply is about who's form of punishment is the "appropriate punishment" and who's form of punishment achieves the values of societal welfare and justice. He argues that his is more just, but he never defines what just is. I see just as doing the right thing, but the right thing in this round is to try to get the most possible value in society (justice and welfare). And on a side note, just and justice ARE NOT the same thing... look up the definitions, just is usually what is right or what is morally right. Justice is rendering each their due. Therefore, you could consider giving someone the death penalty as rendering them their due but I don't see that as morally right therefore not making it just. (if you think I am picky about this, DON'T bring up justification (aka justified :P))
--------------

III. Forced rehab is GOOD for societal welfare.
I honestly don't see ANYWHERE within this debate that suggests that forced rehab is bad. AND if it is bad, how? What are the negative effects. Criminals are the people that need this rehab and if you vote pro, you allow that to happen. Certainly you can not expect these criminals to check them self into rehab facilities and certainly you can't expect it to be 100% effective, HOWEVER, it WILL be more effective than minor jail time. This is proven with the efforts shown by Criminon.

1. (Significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab"
Sure, I'll grant that. Significant crime reduction efforts gives the greatest chance for crime reduction too)-->
-This is where my opponent makes his greatest flaw... I agree with everything that was said in this argument. What my opponent fails to do, is make the connection between crime reduction efforts and minor jail time... The TRUE "significant crime reduction efforts", IS significant rehabilitation efforts.

2. (With all things being equal, of course, less crimes almost certainly leads to greater societal welfare)-->
-ABSOLUTELY, I applaud your genius statement, HOWEVER, the less crimes is ONLY gained on the Pro side as you ADMIT that significant rehab leads to a greater chance for rehab, and if a criminal is rehabilitated, that means he won't commit any more crimes, therefore, by your own admission, Pro has fewer crimes which can ONLY mean that significant rehabilitation ought to replace minor jail time.

(Of course ... all this assumes that forced rehabilitation has no other consequences)--->
Well, if there are any "other consequences", what are they. Since none have been shown in this debate, I can only see that there aren't any, and I am fairly sure that rehab efforts won't increase the crime rate (as the repeat offenders percent is way to high to even have a chance for that). Which is another thing that really went overlooked in this debate is the repeat percentage, the whole reason it is so high is because a night in jail simply is not enough... or in other words, minor jail time NEEDS to be replaced.

Off the whole criminon/scientology argument...--->
My point in the Criminon example was not to show WHAT I wanted the significant rehabilitation efforts to be, but simply, HOW I wanted them done, and by how, I mean with passion, with dedication as to actually make this criminal rehab more than just a dream, but moreover, a reality. Criminon efforts are what shows true dedication to make life better and although they may not be the immediate people who are in charge of this operation (that by the way only OUGHT TO BE DONE) but they do show the capabilities of rehabilitation efforts.

Off of (The simple fact of the matter is, just because a method is good at stopping crime does not necessarily make it good for societal welfare. In fact, very often methods good for reducing crime also happen to be bad, sometimes very bad for societal welfare)-->
-Here my friends, is a perfect example of a contradiction. He says that rehab is the best chance for rehab... then he says it may not be the best for society. Well sure, your examples for effective not good for society (Torture. Spying. Wiretapping. Police State) are true, but I do not advocate that these rehab sessions will be run while the criminals is being electrocuted or drowned. Simply put, rehab IS good for societal good because it gives the greatest chance for rehab and a good society.

IV.-->
Again, my opponent brings up the money. But again, the resolution specifies that we OUGHT TO, not that we will. Everyone ought to donate, but that doesn't mean that everyone will or can. Also, you will see that if we don't spend so much money on this minor jail time, then we will have more money for this rehab. Therefore, his argument holds no weight inside of this debate as if we were to have significant rehab, more welfare will be created irregardless of how the money could be spent otherwise (which he brought up in his explanation)

In the end of this debate, I can only see a Pro vote because both values are upheld with the criterion of appropriate punishment. Significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab (by my opponents admission) therefore more people get what they are "due." be it welfare or rehab. Thanks
MoonDragon613

Con

I wish to also begin by thanking my opponent for a good debate. It has been an interesting set of 4 rounds and with that said, I think it's time to deliver my closing remarks.

Why Con has won this debate:

1) The dispute over values.
Specifically regarding the dispute over values, I kept "trying to prove which value is higher" as my opponent stated. And he's right. Justice is indeed a higher value than Societal Welfare regarding the Criminal Justice System. Therefore the winner of this debate (me) should be decided by which system provides greater justice.

2) Rehabilitation is unjust.
My opponent write "this round is not about which punishment is more just or not". But he's mistaken. If the principle value is Justice, then whether or not a punishment is "appropriate" depends on whether or not it is Just.
As I said, Justice is a noun. Just is an adjective.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The definition of justice is having: "the quality of being just".

If rehabilitation is unjust, as I successfully argued, it is not aligned with the central value of justice.

3) Minor Jail time is just
As this goes unopposed, my opponent concedes that minor jail time is just.

Therefore Minor Jail Time contributes towards the value of Justice while Rehabilitation does not. Therefore I have won the debate.
--------------

But even if we do accept that societal welfare is an important value (so all this is actually irrelevant since it's clear that I've shown Justice is the superseding value), the debate is still won by Con because the status quo (jail time) necessarily contributes to societal welfare while rehabilitation does not.

a)Forced rehab and Police State
My opponent repeated numerous times that Forced Rehabilitation is good because it reduces crime. I said, we should be especially wary of programs that reduce crime because those programs are the ones which jeopardizes liberty most.
And Forced rehabilitation is the perfect example. My opponent brings up Criminon, this exemplary redemption program.
And to which I responded that it was either willful ignorance or just unintended oversight, but Criminon's success comes in large part from their teaching of Scientology's principles and recruiting it's subjects into the Scientology flock.

It's one thing to punish people for violating the social contract. But another altogether to reach into their minds and create "model" citizens out of them through this Forced rehabilitation.
"The difference between forcing people to become "model", "respected" citizens who follow the "correct" behaviors of society and offering them the opportunity to learn is as wide a gap as between the freedoms of our Democracy and the tyranny of a Police State. Rehabilitation is wonderful. Forced Rehabilitation is tyranny."

People in America have the freedom to do what's wrong ... so long as they then pay the price. It's how civil disobedience operates. Forced Rehabilitation is a dangerous concept, a step short of brainwashing and societal conformation. Forcing people to behave a certain way ... that is not what OUGHT to happen in a Democracy.
-----------------------

And for these reasons, I am proud to oppose the resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
If your good at LD Johnicle, I'll see you at nationals next year.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
well, a lot of the resolutions that I am the instigator in is a resolution that I submitted to the NFL website. I made most of them up but I figured since I came up with a bunch to submit, I might as well try them out.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
I'm pretty sure it's made up.
Posted by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
LD DEBATE!!!!!! Is this a made up resolution or is it an upcoming resolution because I did a research paper on the subject...
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
Anyone who's read through this debate should have the right to post a 3k character commentary.
Posted by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
Yes, I took about a hour of my time and evaluated this very carefully..just ask if you wanna hear my 2cents.[critique]lol.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
well, resolved is just a general term that generally goes in front of most debate topics. It's kind of like congress, they pass resolutions and the debate was "resolved." or at least, thats what ive gotten from it
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Someone please tell me exactly what meaning I'm supposed to take out of "Resolved" at the beginning of a statement. Is it just some L-D jargon that means nothing?
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LDdebaterCG 6 years ago
LDdebaterCG
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
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 6 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 meganlg43 9 years ago
meganlg43
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by shaqdaddy34 9 years ago
shaqdaddy34
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Bitter_Sarcasm 9 years ago
Bitter_Sarcasm
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by AlphaBeta 9 years ago
AlphaBeta
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Teddy_Bear 9 years ago
Teddy_Bear
JohnicleMoonDragon613Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30