The Instigator
TwixMoment
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Consummator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above Retribution in the United States" criminal justice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,276 times Debate No: 30377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

TwixMoment

Pro

Just posting a (really) simple case I wrote out.

I tried to keep this as traditional as possible - let's keep jargon out of this for this round. But I need practice with framework arguments so I placed it in here. If I end up replying late I am sorry. Also, I'm not extremely experienced with Debate, but I intend to do my best.

Cross Examination is optional.
ALSO: I'm alright with only contention/point level debate- you can ignore the standard and value, just make sure you explicitly tell me at the beginning.

I expect a case and a rebut. next speech.

Any debater of any kind is find by me.

I value morality but we must differentiate between the morality of an individual and the morality of a state.

Kennan explains,
"functions, commitments and moral obligations of governments are not the same as those of the individual. Government is an agent, not a principal. Its primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience.

So in determining what constitutes the morality of a state action, we cannot look to individually based moral systems. Instead, we should use a system of morality specific to the state and the policy makers who make decisions within the state. In every instance policy makers must choose to save the more numerous group. "

Rackowski:
"status as moral equals requires that the number of people kept alive be maximized. in this way can we give weight to the fundamental equality of persons; to allow more deaths when we can ensure fewer is to treat some people as less valuable than others.Those who die are no less ends than those who live. an impartial decision-maker must choose to save the more numerous group, even if she must kill to do so."

So the standard is minimizing suffering to US citizens.

Contention 1: Retribution fails to protect Society,
Protecting society as a whole should be a top priority when it comes to the Justice System. The major threat that retribution holds is the re-occurrence of crime from already-convicted criminals. Punishing criminals is pointless if they merely repeat the crime again. Retribution is ineffective for the reason that retribution is unable to prevent crime from re-occurring.

Stefan LoBuglio, (Harvard U. Graduate School of Education), 2007,
"In June 2002, the United States Department of Justice"s Bureau of Justice Statistics published one of the largest and best known studies that found that among a representative sample of the nation"s prison population released in 1994, [stated that] 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, 46.9% were convicted for a new crime and 51.8% were re-incarcerated."

The Department of Justice proves that rehabilitation is inherently ineffective when it comes to stopping crime. Retribution is flawed because it allows more than half of the incarcerated criminals of the country to commit crimes once again.

The impacts of recidivism are shown here.

Wilson, Jane [Stanford's Strauss Scholar, developing educational programs for inmates in cities
across the US.] 2007.
"The effects of recidivism in the United States fall into four general categories. First, recidivism imposes tremendous public safety costs on American communities; high recidivism rates indicate additional victimizations (assuming that the crime for which the juvenile was arrested was in fact committed). Second, increased recidivism results in extremely destructive social costs; increases in violence, crime, homelessness, family destabilization, and public health risks are all associated with high recidivism rates. Third, recidivism imposes a considerable financial burden on the U.S. Department of Justice and, more generally, on American society; our government spends an annual sixty billion dollars on correctional programs. Fourth, high recidivism indicates a failure to provide meaningful rehabilitation for inmates reentering the community; recidivist juveniles lose out on crucial educational, social, and personal developments that can rarely be regained. Additionally, studies show that recurrent offenses during teenage years can provide a dangerous inculcation leading to adult criminality. The tragedy of this cycle of criminality cannot be understated. "

My opponent has to attack all four reasons. Retribution should not be preferred for the sole reason that it is ineffective in stopping criminals.

Contention 2: Drugs and Alcohol

Subpoint A: Drugs and Alcohol are the primary cause of crime.
Retribution is flawed because it does not contribute to the reason the criminal committed the crime in the first place. One of the primary causes of the majority of crimes is relevant to drugs and alcohol.
The U.S. Department of Justice
Alcohol and Crime found that alcohol abuse was a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes committed in the U.S."

(Bureau of Justice)
In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for Federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for State prisoners (19% in 1997). (Bureau of Justice)

Bureau of Justice Statistics
"In the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 32% of state prisoners and 26% of federal prisoners said they had committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs. "

Also, when drugs become involved; the gangs surrounding the drug abuser can become a major cause of crime.

FBI ( September 2008)
"Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the nation "

The current system of retribution is flawed because retribution does not fulfill for one of the greatest causes of crime: addiction.
The direct scientific link to alcohol and violence are shown here.

Pernanen, Gibbs
"Research has also identified secondary cognitive effects of alcohol on intellectual and linguistic ability. Quite simply, people who have consumed substantial amounts of alcohol have greater difficulty in thinking rationally and speaking clearly " making it harder for them to exercise sound judgement and substitute more acceptable behaviours, such as calm argument, for inarticulate aggressive responses."

Nearly a 100% of all crime involves some sort of addiction, or problems that are caused by the addiction. Drugs, alcohol and anything revolving around the idea behind them are the primary causes of crime.

Subpoint B- Rehabilitation is effective in stopping the primary cause of crime and recidivism.
Past examples prove that rehabilitation that specifically involves alcohol or drugs prove to work considerably well.

National Criminal Reference Justice Service.
To measure the average recidivism rate for [substance ]court graduates, the calculations in this study are based on a sample of 2,020 graduates in 1999 and 2000 from 95 courts. . The study estimates that within one year after graduation, only 16.4 percent of drug court graduates had been arrested and charged with a serious offense, nearly an 85% Success Rate.

Adam Lamparello .
The rise, and subsequent success of [substance abuse] courts, is not surprising because it focuses on the substance abuse problems that lie at the heart of crimes of addiction. , New York courts boast a 75% graduation rate and mere 20% recidivism rate. In Pittsburgh,[ substance abuse courts ]have reduced recidivism rates to less than 33%. only 10 to 33% of drug court graduates are rearrested for new offenses. Contrast this with the 77% recidivism rate with retribution.
Consummator

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for putting such a great effort into their round one debate. It is nice to see that people with different views to me are very hard working as well :)

Whilst I do, personally, agree with the resolution I can definitely understand the view opposers to it have.

I, as con, shall be opposing the view that rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States (of America).

I shall begin by asking my opponent to provide sourced evidence of the following claims (which I consider false).

Claim 1: "Drugs and Alcohol are the primary cause of crime."

Claim 2: "Nearly a 100% of all crime involves some sort of addiction, or problems that are caused by the addiction."


Now I shall quote something that my opponent said that I think is actually in favour of my side of the debate.

They said "The Department of Justice proves that rehabilitation is inherently ineffective when it comes to stopping crime."

I am confused as to how this supports their side of the debate.

I shall now rebut some things proposed which I agree with.
  1. In every instance policy makers must choose to save the more numerous group.
  2. (Quote from Rackowski) "an impartial decision-maker must choose to save the more numerous group, even if she must kill to do so."
  3. Protecting society as a whole should be a top priority when it comes to the Justice System.
  4. When drugs become involved; the gangs surrounding the drug abuser can become a major cause of crime.
  5. Past examples prove that rehabilitation that specifically involves alcohol or drugs prove to work considerably well.
I agree with all of these. They do not, however, help my opponent's case but rather layout a parameter in which to debate.


I shall now rebut certain quotes of my opponent.

Quote 1: "The major threat that retribution holds is the re-occurrence of crime from already-convicted criminals."

Rebuttal 1
Rehabilitation lets criminals out, often with much lighter sentence time-wise than retribution so the point is irrelevant. Additionally, while retribution involves life sentences and death penalties a system based on rehabilitation offers no such facility (to prevent recurrences).


Quote 2: "Punishing criminals is pointless if they merely repeat the crime again."

Rebuttal 2
The point of punishing is to prevent the majority of people rioting or panicking due to the feeling of an ineffective justice system being in place. Even if some criminals in the system re-commit, the punishments should be based on what the majority feel they would be protected by best.


Quote 3: "Retribution is ineffective for the reason that retribution is unable to prevent crime from re-occurring."

Rebuttal 3
The same applies to rehabilitation. Additionally this is false due to death penalty and life sentences.


Quote 4: "Retribution is flawed because it allows more than half of the incarcerated criminals of the country to commit crimes once again."

Rebuttal 4
While it's true that over 50% of people do not get life sentences and eventually are released, it's untrue to suggest rehabilitation prevents future committing of crimes in any way at all since punishing isn't even involved in such a system.


Quote 5: "Retribution is flawed because it does not contribute to the reason the criminal committed the crime in the first place."

Rebuttal 5
This isn't why retribution is flawed and additionally it isn't any less relevant to rehabilitation.


Quote 6: "Retribution should not be preferred for the sole reason that it is ineffective in stopping criminals."

Rebuttal 6
How is it ineffective at stopping criminals if they are stuck behind bars?


Quote 7: "Drugs, alcohol and anything revolving around the idea behind them are the primary causes of crime. "

Rebuttal 7
Are you suggesting that the primary causes of torture, murder and rape is drugs and alcohol?


I shall now construct my own case.

Contention 1: The psychopath

I shall first outline the characteristic of someone who is a clinically diagnosed psychopath.

http://www.arkancide.com...
  1. An excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Psychopaths often have a low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.
  2. The use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from pathological lying in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.
  3. A lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, cold-hearted, and unempathetic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.
  4. The occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.
  5. Repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.
I do not see a single way that rehabilitation would be useful for these people. They are clearly a huge portion of the population of criminals since the life of crime, involving high risk of being caught meaning an adrenaline rush. However, they will never ever be able to resist temptation in the long run and would lie and do anything they could to pass through the rehabilitation process and get out (even perhaps lying to their counsellor about their inner urges and what not). They are not addicted to crime, they are instead built for a life of crime and nothing but. These are not to be confused for sociopaths who can manage without crime, psychopaths literally are built to crave the risk of being caught doing something wrong, it's their only true fun in life.

Retribution, such as a life sentence or death penalty, could put these people away from society and protect people from them. Additionally it's much fairer to the psychopath to do so because they can then be in an environment of others like them without feeling bad about it.

Contention 2: You can't rehabilitate criminals that committed the crime for gang culture.

There is no addition involved in gang crime. It merely is obeying the will of the majority in the situation one is in. They say "STAB HIM!" you do it and bam you did a crime. There is simply nothing to rehabilitate rendering the entire process null.

Contention 3: It's impossible to stop a criminal re-committing by any means other than retribution (which can also fail to do so)

Retribution offers life sentences and death penalties.

Rehabilitation is designed to always let the criminal free once declared 'cured of addiction to crime'.

A freed criminal can always re-commit but the fear of retribution would be a far greater deterrent than the fear of being rehabilitated, which is often painless and in a caring environment.


Thanks and I hope to see your reply :)
Debate Round No. 1
TwixMoment

Pro

TwixMoment forfeited this round.
Consummator

Con

I await my opponent's response in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
TwixMoment

Pro

Thanks to Consumnator with being patient with me. I apologize for not checking this website enough.

SO let's begin.

The fundamental problem my opponent has in his attack in his previous speech, is the fact that he completely ignores all of my evidence/cards that were clearly revealed in the very first speech.He cannot claim my case is unwarranted without attacking my actual evidence.

He claims I provide no real warrants for these claims.

Claim 1:"Drugs and Alcohol are the primary cause of crime."

Claim 2:"Nearly a 100% of all crime involves some sort of addiction, or problems that are caused by the addiction."

For both of these claims, extend the multiple Bureau of Justice cards and the FBI card that were already stated in the first contention. Perhaps he missed them?
Extend Bureau of Justice Cards in Case. I'm not typing them here to preserve space.

If my opponent wishes to claim that these cards are insufficient warrants to the impact drugs,alchohol, and the gangs surrounding the drugs, he would have to attack each card individually. If he does not not, I win this contention and both of his claims.


I stated "The Department of Justice proves that rehabilitation is inherently ineffective when it comes to stopping crime."
I believe that was a typo. It meant to say retribution. I assume my multitude of cards proved this. EXTEND EVERY CARD in PREVIOUS CASE. It would be ridiculous if a judge votes me down for this.


I will go on to defend my case.



Quote:
The point of punishing is to prevent the majority of people rioting or panicking due to the feeling of an ineffective justice system being in place. Even if some criminals in the system re-commit, the punishments should be based on what the majority feel they would be protected" by best."

Rebuttal
I want the judge to evaluate this. Is a system in which 50% of ALL CRIMINALS (Lubuglio and Jane Evidence)convicted and sent to jail and commit crimes once again supposed to create "peace and happiness" and prevent rioting? My opponent would have to prove to me that people are satisfied in the fact that half of the countries criminals are revidists. An argument that claims recidivism makes people unhappy is definently more believable than an argument that claims revidivism keeps people satisfied.

Also, I want to accentuate the fact that he agreed to my Morality (practically Utilitarian) Framework, which means we have to be protecting the lives of the most amount of citizens. Clearly if half of the country's criminals commit crimes once again, the citizen's are insufficiently protected. I think my opponent and I can agree that crime hurts society, and more crime hurts society more.

Also, let's dwelve on the purpose of the justice system. If my judge thinks the Justice System has ANY INVOLVEMENT in preventing crimes from reoccuring, you'll be dropping this argument.


Quote:
" Rehabilitation lets criminals out, often with much lighter sentence time-wise than retribution so the point is irrelevant.Additionally, while retribution involves life sentences and death penalties a system based on rehabilitation offers no such facility "

Rebuttal

Why is a lighter sentence bad? Also, I don't see why rehabilitation can be used from minor crimes that stray away from life-in-prison and the death sentence. Retribution can be used for death sentence and life-in-prison, since keeping them off the planet forever sometimes is the best option. The purpose of rehab is to prevent minor criminals to become much more severe criminals, in which retribution fails to do (Extend Lubuglio and Jane card)

Quote:
"The same applies to rehabilitation. Additionally this is false due to death penalty and life sentences."

Rebuttal
Definently not. My opponent once again ignores my cards in my case.
There has been numerous cases in which rehab was extremely efficient in stopping recidivism.
The National Criminal Reference Justice Service evaluates 95 courts, in which average an 85% success rate. Compare this to retribution's 50% success rate. Adam Lamparello evaluates a court throughout two entire cities, with an average of a 77% sucess rate.

This isn't why retribution is flawed and additionally it isn't any less relevant to rehabilitation.

Rebuttal.
This argument is weak. Extend all my cards, and look at my second contention. Once again, he doesn't seem to acknowledge my evidence.

Quote:
How is it ineffective at stopping criminals if they are stuck behind bars?

Rebuttal
My claim involved recidivism. Half of the criminals in prison repeat crimes again as soon as they are free from bars. Extend all my revidism cards.

Quote
Are you suggesting that the primary causes of torture, murder and rape is drugs and alcohol?
Drugs, alchohol, and pressure from gangs are the primary causes of the majority of crimes, not all crimes. Phsychological issues are usually associated with torture,murder, and rape. Also, I don't see why being too intoxicated can impair a person's judgement enough to rape/murder somebody, or pressure from drug gangs. Rape and murder are definently part of the FBI Card I had in my case.

On to his case

Contention 1 - The psychopath.
This argument was flawed because it holds little impact. He claims "[psychopaths] are clearly a huge portion of the population of criminals since the life of crime,", but doesn't prove this in any way. Sure, I know psychopaths cause crime, and who they are, but it doesn't matter unless it causes rehabilitation to reduce less crime and protect more lives than the retribution system.
My opponent immediately loses this contention because it holds no real impacts because there is no proof that psycopaths are even a reasonable amount of society. For all the judge knows, less than 2% of the country could be a psycopath, or 100% of the country could be a psycopath. Prefer my arguments because I provide meaningful evidence that the judge KNOWS how many criminals rehabilitation will impact with substance abuse courts, and contrast this to my opponents in which he "assumes" a majority of the country is a crazed psycopath. Also, even if my opponent proves that a majority of the country is a psychopath, extend all my previous evidence of when rehabilitatino was successful.

Contention 2: You can't rehabilitate criminals that committed the crime for gang culture.
I definently do not see why not. Extend all my previous evidence of when rehabilitation was successful in stopping criminals. and cards, and extend all of my previous contentions. Also, my opponent claims the person is "merely obeying their will..". My argument is that any person who becomes associated with gangs (often associated with drugs) is more likely to commit crimes. This argument really isn't an argument at all, as he can't prove that rehabilitation is ineffective in stopping criminals.

Contention 3: It's impossible to stop a criminal re-committing by any means other than retribution (which can also fail to do so)
Once again, my opponent seems to look past ALL of my cards. So instead of exploding in frustration, I will just extend all my cards, which definently disproves this point. Rehab works considerably better than retribution.




Conclusion:
This is an inexplicably easy vote for the aff.
Three reasons:

1. All his arguments ignore my cards and pretend they don't exist. They definently do. Derp.
2. None of his arguments hold real massive impact, and aren't sufficiently proven. Contrast this with my multitude of cards.
3. None of his arguments justify recidivists.
4. He violates my Util FW. More recividists definently means more crime, which definently leads to more infractions on society's safety.
5. My cards disprove all of his arguments. No seriously. Like LITERALLY.


Also, I want to eccentuate this. My opponent is NOT ALLOWED to provide NEW ARGUMENTS or NEW EVIDENCE in his LAST SPEECH, because then, I am unable to attack them at all, and he would practically automatically win all of his new evidence and points. He is only allowed to use the arguments and cards used earlier, just like I did.







Consummator

Con

Consummator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
Ah great...

Consummator's account is no longer active.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
Consummator -

Would you like to perhaps restart this round somewhere else?
We can allow this one to just die down, and we can just create a new debate with the same topic so we can still have 3 debate rounds.

I deeply apologize.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
I apologize. I didn't expect anybody to actually post a rebut.
Never bothered to check.

Please just post nothing for your turn.
I will refute immediately after..

Sorry about this.
Posted by PETERFRAN 4 years ago
PETERFRAN
Well Twix:
This is a tired topic, and a bit ambiguous compared to what you appear to be seeking. Drug addicts, homicidal maniacs, and rapists are very different animals, as well as adult and juvenile offences. Also, Dr. Jocelyn Elders (Sergeant General during the Clinton era) advocated decriminalizing street drugs so that teenage addicts could receive treatment without being branded criminals. Maybe this would generate more interest, a debate over whether it"s the criminal or the system which needs rehabilitation. Because although the public might be temporarily safe from those imprisoned, zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing has a way of turning petty offenders into hardcore criminals.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
Huh, I honestly thought it would take less time to find an opponent...
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
@RoyLatham

1. Retribution has been abandoned as a goal of the system.
Let's compare the death Sentence and Life in Jail. Both are preventing the murderous criminal from ever going out into society again; and are preventing the criminal from committing the crime again. The chances of a person escaping high-security national-level prison are next to 0, and same with a person who is executed. They fulfill the same purpose, but why do we kill criminals when the crime is bad enough? Why do worse crimes constitute longer sentences? The answer is clear: to proportionalize their wrongdoings.
Example: A person who kills one person will receive a much lower amount of jail time when compared to a person who kills millions of people. I guess you could argue that longer jail times means more times to change the criminal... But I don't see how retribution is nonexistant in times of execution or perhaps life in prison.

2. Rehabilitation does not work.
This is not true. Read my cards from contention 2 Subpoint B.
It seems to work fine - atleast in comparison to retribution.
Also be aware that this is from the Bureau of Justice that came from straight from the Government. The Lamparello card comes from multiple states.

3. Imprisonment prevents criminals from committing recidivism. This works.
Definently not true. Read Contention 1 and all of the cards.
The recidivism rates are absolutely tremendous.

Honestly, if the topic was changed to Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above "the prison system" in the United States" criminal justice system it wouldn't change much. My case has little to do with the death sentence.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I'm impressed that this a high school debate topic, because the resolution is so far from the reality of criminal justice. Retribution has long been abandoned as a goal of the system. Punishment as a deterrent to crime remains as part of the system, but "getting even" as a goal is not. Rehabilitation was the major goal of the prion system starting back in the 60s. The result was that it doesn't work. Perhaps a whole new approach to rehabilitation might work, but all the things tried did not work. Rehab as goal is accepted. Currently, a major purpose of imprisonment is to prevent criminals from committing crimes against the public for the time they are imprisoned. This works.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
Hmm.. That's True.

I should definently change that lol.
Posted by x2MuzioPlayer 4 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
I noticed there's a slight difference with your resolution, though. The whole resolution was specifically directed towards the United States' criminal justice system. I think that changes the context of the debate entirely.
Posted by TwixMoment 4 years ago
TwixMoment
This is for High School Debate.
This was the topic for January and February.

It's not really "required" but you definently want try to compete and win tournaments.
I went to my last tournament of this year at Colleyville Heritage so I decided to post it here just for the heck of it.

Although, competitive LD debate can be quite.... different than what people usually think of Debate.

Example:
No votes have been placed for this debate.