Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

The crime rate is rising because of poverty, society’s loss of morals, and things like that. Deterrence is the only thing keeping it from rising more explosively. My opponent has not refuted my point that if the deterrence factor was legitimate, 1/3 people would be criminals. He has also completely ignored the fact that in 41 states DETERRENCE DOES NOT WORK. Also, this is clearly not the case because of the reoffending rate of 66%. These people have already been through jail, why would they commit more crime if they would be deterred? My opponent’s math is completely faulty. According to my opponent: more people in jail = more crime deterred therefore putting lots of people in jail should decrease the crime rate. CLEARLY, this is incorrect as shown by my stats. This point has fallen. This does not mean that rehabilitation is the cause of this lower crime rate though Yes it does. Norway is one of the safest countries on earth, much lower incarceration rate, and only a 20% recidivism rate (keep in mind that there are fewer prisoners, so in reality that 20% is less than 5% compared to America’s 67%) [1] If we are offering potential criminals all these benefits, then there is really much less reason to stay out of jail. Except for the fact that you WILL STILL SERVE TIME. Furthermore, my opponent is under the impression that job skills will be taught, when in reality (as I have shown), it is more practical skills. For example, Gordon Ramsey has made a television show of him teaching prisoner’s how to cook to be able to give back to society. IS THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN LEARN HOW TO COOK JAIL? Obviously not, this point is ridiculous. If, as pro says, people will be equally unsuccessful in prison, why would rehab work? It already is working (as I have shown numerous times). I was showing how prison does not function like school, they do not teach you what you would typically learn in school. While they will still be kept out of society, they will still be given rehabilitation, free education, free drug rehab, and other things that they did not earn. Justice is getting what is deserved, and criminals do not deserve a reward for crime. Firstly, education and drug rehab are services offered almost everywhere for free outside of jail. Secondly, justice is not putting someone in jail, releasing them, and having them reoffend with a MORE SERIOUS CRIME. My opponent would rather have someone steal a car, be sent to jail, released, and then murder someone. Rehabilitation is completely justice, it is completely unfair of us not to give criminals a second chance. Policies and laws that go against a majority of the public opinion do not usually last very long and elected officials that make unpopular choices do not stay in office. This is completely ridiculous. THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT ELECTED; it is separate from the other branches of government. Furthermore, what my opponent is suggesting is that public opinion is important in terms of justice. Let’s say the supreme court finds a man not guilty, and almost 100% of the population finds the man guilty. What happens now? The Supreme Court is going against the rule of the people, isn’t it? ?? PUBLIC OPINION DOES NOT AFFECT JUSTICE, PUBLIC OPINION DOES NOT AFFECT REHAB. If he had read past the first paragraph, he would eventually have come to the part that says “We don’t want your sort here. ” I Ctrl-F (searched) the file. That was not found in the entire document. Furthermore, this entire thing is about Britain’s public opinion, so regardless this is completely invalid. but I provided those from a different source that said 75% of people already think courts are too easy on criminals. This does not mean that they would be against rehabilitation. Furthermore, as I have stated, THIS DOES NOT MATTER IN JUSTICE. That may be true, but if it is then all my opponent’s evidence about Norway’s rehabilitation system is also irrelevant. My information is not irrelevant. Your information you attempted to pass of as American public opinion, when it is British public opinion. On the other hand, my stats merely show rehabilitation reduces crime in Norway, and should reduce crime in America. it argues that prisons do not deter recidivism, but I am arguing that prisons deter crime from happening in the first place. This is completely ridiculous. If prisons in America are punishing people and people avoid going to prison, WHY WOULD CRIMINALS REOFFEND? ?? OPPONENT’S CASE FIRSTLY – LACK DETERRENCE Clearly not the case, why would criminals reoffend if it deterred people? Why would crime rates ever increase? My opponent says that deterrence is what keeps the crime rate down, and without deterrence the crime rate would BE 15X HIGHER. My opponent has essentially said that secretly 100 million Americans are criminals, just deterrence stops them from committing crimes. This is completely ridiculous, this point falls. SECONDLY – ENCOURAGES CRIME This is incorrect. What is taught in rehab are basic life skills and how to quit addictions. Substance abuse clinics are found outside of jail. Schools are found outside of jail. Cooking classes are found outside of jail. My opponent is assuming that a free university level education will be found in jails, which is not the case. This point fails. THIRDLY – JUSTICE IS LOST This is also ridiculous. Justice is not encouraging criminals to reoffend multiple times. Rehabilitation does not mean no punishment, going to jail is punishment. Serving time is punishment. Being taught how to cook, and maybe how to make clothes to sustain yourself is not losing justice. This is a completely faulty point and falls. FOURTHLY – PUBLIC OPINION IS AGAINST REHABILITATION Also completely ridiculous. Public opinion being against rehabilitation does not make it less effective nor does the public’s opinion even matter. If public opinion was against drug rehab clinics (WHICH ARE FOUND OUTSIDE OF JAIL), should they be shut down? Of course not. This point fails. MY CASE REHABILITATION LOWERS CRIME RATES As I have shown, Norway has an extremely low crime rate primarily as a result of their rehabilitation system. Rehab reduces reoffending rates by 80% and allows criminals to help society. My opponent has attempted to clash this point by saying rehab increases crime rates, but I have already refuted that point. Therefore, my point stands and my opponent’s points do not. My BOP has been fulfilled and it is clear that I have won this debate. SOURCES: . http://thinkprogress.org... . http://www.youtube.com...