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

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 JusticeAlcohol 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.