Resolved: In the United States, Minor Jail Time Ought to be Replaced with Significant Rehabilitation

I. Recidivism. 1. Sure, the high recidivism rates indicate that something is wrong with the system. And I certainly never denied that. Recall the last paragraph of my round 1 - I said the system is broken, but that doesn't mean it should be replaced with something even worse. The fact that there are problems with the system does not immediately lead to the conclusion that rehabilitation is the answer. If your computer doesn't turn on, do you immediately call customer support? No! You check if it's plugged in. The presence of a problem does not go anywhere near proving the correctness of any given solution. 2. I never said "the status quo is working". What I argued is that the status quo is a superior system to what the PRO is proposing. In other words, my point is not necessarily that the system as it is provides an entirely sufficient deterrent to repeat offenses, but rather that it provides a better deterrent than rehabilitation would. My opponent's assumption that I'm saying the status quo is just fine clearly highlights the fact that he has severely misinterpreted my case. 3. As to the definition of 'significant': the actual definition says "having or likely to have influence or effect". My opponent has grossly misinterpreted this definition. The fact that something has or is likely to have effect does not mean it is "effective" in the way my opponent implies. The effect that it has could very well be negative – an increase in recidivism rates, for example, or an increase in cost – and that is entirely within the definition. Thus, the effectiveness of rehabilitation in terms of lowering recidivism rates is most definitely NOT assured by the wording of the resolution. My opponent has, thus far, offered NO reason to believe that rehabilitation would be a more effective deterrent to repeat offenses than minor jail time. I, on the other hand, have given reason to believe the reverse. 4. My point here was that the majority of PRO's round 1 was dedicated to debating only a fraction of all of the things we need to take into consideration for this debate. It was also a lead-in to the new points I provided later on in my case (IV and V). II. Cost 1. My opponent gives three reasons why he thinks his plan is superior in this regard: i. The criminals will pay for it – I've already addressed this (see II of my round 1). The cost would be far too high for most individuals to deal with, and my opponent has left the door open for the government to provide the money if that's the case; so we end up with a system that puts the cost on the shoulders of the criminals only symbolically, and not in practice. This, by the way, could just as easily be implemented under the current system, if it's such a great idea – which it isn't anyway. ii. It will take less time – There is absolutely no reason to believe rehabilitation would take less time than minor jail time. To educate a criminal, and put them through all of the psychiatric monitoring and assistance necessary to reach arbitrary government standards of fitness to return to society would take a very long time, indeed. Unless my opponent provides some reason to believe his claim here, it does not stand. iii. Costs will go down due to a decrease in recidivism – Again, my opponent has provided no reason (beyond faulty analysis of the definition of 'significant') why rehabilitation would lower recidivism rates. 2. Again, there's no reason to believe rehabilitation would take less time than minor jail time, so we cannot assume that that is true. Even if it were true, though, it's probable that the increased cost due to the education and psychiatric help involved would counteract the decrease in time, and cause rehabilitation to be as expensive or more expensive than the current system. III. Humanitarian concerns. OK, so prison brutality is a problem. But once again, the presence of a problem does not prove the rightness of any given solution. We ought to try to solve the problem WITHIN the current system, rather than just assuming the entire system needs to be scrapped and replaced with something else. There's NO connection between the facts about prison brutality and the claim that rehabilitation should replace the status quo, because altering the status quo just slightly could very well reduce prison brutality just as well as moving to rehabilitation could. IV. Efficiency. Note that my opponent has conceded that a rehabilitation system would not be as efficient as the current system. The humanitarian concerns have nothing to do with the efficiency of the system. The issue of prison brutality could very well be addressed without undermining the efficiency of the system, if the government saw fit. My opponent says, "As for determining what kind of rehab criminals would get, that can be determined during court proceedings." But this simply wouldn't work. If you want rehabilitation to have even the slightest, tiniest chance of success in ANY case, then it must be dealt with on a very individualized basis. There is NO way to make standards by which to judge every case, because EVERY individual's mental makeup and health is different from everyone else's. To make sound decisions in this regard would force the government to employ enough psychiatric professionals to diagnose every single criminal who otherwise would be given minor jail time. This, for the sake of a program that wouldn't be effective anyway. My opponent also claims that "keeping track of the criminals is not really a concern for current rehab programs". First, I'm not sure what "current rehab programs" he's talking about. Second, I think it's fairly obvious that a rehabilitation system involving education and psychiatric monitoring and assistance for every single criminal who would otherwise be given minor jail time would be an administrative nightmare, due to the high level of individualization necessary. V. Punishment. My opponent's points here assume that rehabilitation would lower recidivism rates, and yield criminals who can "return to the community as a reformed citizen". He has in no way, at no point, proven this or given any reason to believe it, so we most certainly cannot assume it is true. Therefore, my point about the current system providing peace of mind to the victims and their families stands. My opponent shrugs aside my point that thousands of years of development in criminal justice has provided us with the punishment standards we have today as simply "an appeal to tradition". Well, appeals to tradition are not always faulty – this is one of those potential fallacies that has a lot of wiggle room. Since we're talking about the criminal justice system, the development of said system over thousands of years is certainly a relevant concern. And it's important to note, regarding the last sentence in PRO's point here, that progress is not always a good thing. At one point in time, totalitarian communist regimes were on the cutting edge. Conclusion. The status quo has flaws, but PRO's proposed system has bigger flaws, and more of them. Furthermore, what problems the status quo does have can easily be reformed without resorting to totally scrapping the system and replacing it with a system based on rehabilitation. Now, onto round 3!