Proposed changes to the prison system

I was going to say "Thanks pro. .. ." but pro stole my line. I will put one better, Merry Christmas Gordonjames. Better yet, Merry Christmas to all! This round I will simply highlight our agreements and disagreements and conclude. AGREEMENTS with PRO:1. Capital Punishment 2. Drug related offenses3. Monitoring4. Prisons5. Military ServiceDISAGREEMENTS with PRO:1. Violent offendersRound 2:"I should of been more specific about the maiming process. If someone steals, I would reccommend removing their thumbs. Thumbs are required for the most insignificant of tasks from opening doors to writing. A person would not become a burden on society by removing their thumbs. Tasks done by that person would become more difficult. "2. Non violent offendersRound 2:"I disagree, to allow the correction system to continue as is allows criminals to strengthen their criminal skills. The correction system has been proven to be the criminals version of college. You go there to get more experienced then you previously were[2]. The current correction system has failed in terms of the "correcting" aspects. The correction system does not "correct" and has failed in many places in the modern world[3][4]. For this debate, we should avoid discussing the Scandanavian prison system since those societies lack violent criminals. "3. Mental illnessRound 3:"I find this sentiment to be disagreable as well as dangerous. I find it dangerous because of the lack of scientific research involved in the DSM. Should we based the mental health of one individual base on the assessment of one psychiatrist? A psychiatrist who bases his opinions on the DSM in which disorders are voted upon. The DSM is not very credible especially when we are determing how we should deal with disturbed individuals. "4. Release LocationRound 2:"This is a restriction that is probably untenable for economic and social reasons. People released from prison need jobs. It is cities which offer the most jobs. To limit the people on parole and people who have served their time to rural areas would limit their capacity to find a job. I would also be concerned about seperating people from their loved ones. To isolate them from their family and friends may cause some of them to engage in a life of crime again. "5. Repeat offenseRound 2:"I disagree because taxpayers would have to subsidize them for the rest of their life. The crime they committed will be worth far less compared to the amount of money we will use to subsidize them for the rest of their lives. There needs to be a serious reduction in prison spending. Most prisoners are not worth the amount of money we spend on them. "6. Sentencing lengthsRound 2: See 5.7. Loss of citizenshipRound 3:"I like the general sentiment but I don't think too many countries would want to accept our prisoners. What countries are you thinking of? I don't think there is a modern Australia, if you understand what I am getting at there. Australia was a former prison colony. On top of that, I don't think exiling our prisoners would solve the problem. I think we would just be forcing our problem onto other countries when we send them our prisoners. It reminds me of how Fidel Castro sent unwanted Cuban prisoners to the United States when he allowed dissidents to leave Cuba on the Mariel. "8. Capital Punishment with Firing Squads to reduce Prison CostsRound 3:"I find your reasoning behind this to be a bit extreme. We should use the firing squad on all long term offenders just to reduce cost? I would assume you are including people who engaged in multiple charges and have long sentences. "Conclusion:I stated previously my reforms are based on speed, efficiency, and a devout belief in absolute justice. Pro's reforms would be far more taxing to finance the malevolent amongst us. Pro's reforms are also far more ruthless than mine simply to reduce costs. I found some of Pro's reforms to be impractical, like the loss of citizenship for example Where would these people go? Pro never explained any countries. I did not have a large program as Pro because I was strictly concerned about the practicality of the reforms. I thought, could these reforms actually take place. Where as I think numerous of Pro's reforms are not possible for fiscal reasons as well as contractual reasons. I think my plan is superior because it reduces costs, punishes the violent criminals, and relieves the citizenry of the burden of subsidizing the malevolent in society. After all, why should we subsidize the existence of people who have served to break societies' laws which we all generally follow? Again, thanks Pro for hosting this debate.