In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

I'll present the NC, then move to the AC [Observations] 1. The resolution states "replaced", therefore we are not debating prioritization. Rather we are debating the absolutes of both sides. 2. The affirmative must prove the following burdens: a. Prove greater externalities on the AC b. Prove that rehabilitation works c. Prove that rehabilitation ought to be valued as superior 3. US framework The negative values justice within a US framework, which can be defined as giving each their due. The obligation of a criminal system is to provide justice to criminals. The US punishment tenets states that the first goal of punishment within the US system is "retribution." Therefore, the maintain consistency within the US system, we must look to retribution as the brightline. Thus, the value of justice is achieved by the criterion of Retribution. Retribution has multiple links to justice: First, criminals can only receive their due when they are punished for criminal acts. Second, justice is best achieved when the criminal pays their debt back to society. Contention I: Jail is more in line with retribution Retribution is when a criminal receives punishment for a criminal act. Jail is the only way to enact this retribution. Rehabilitation is categorized as a "restorative" mechanism within the justice system, and is not retribution. Under the penal tenets, restoration is the last value within the system, whereas retribution is listed as the #1 priority. Therefore, to remain consistent within the US framework, we must value retribution first, which can only be done if the jail system is amintained. Contention II: Rehabilitation is counterproductive Rehabilitation has failed in the past, and is actually counter productive. According to the Justice Department, 70% of criminals that are rehabilitated cause recidivism. Clearly rehabilitation causes backlash agaisnt society, thus why should we value it? Moving to the AC: C1 - Preventing further Crime I have 3 responses: First, link my above stat which chows that rehabilitation is ineffective. Second, this argument is non-unique, in the way he poses it. Yes, jail is only for a time but that doesn't prove that rehabilitation works to incapacitate further crimes from occurring. Third, even if you don't but my 2 other arguments you can turn this point. Rehabilaition actually creates negative backlash on the fact that rehabilitation has no means to hold people, and it is ineffective. Thus, he actually makes a negative externality on society. C2 - Small Jail Time does not work I have 2 responses: First, he never proves his premise. He just asserts that it wouldn't work. Second, again non-unique on the fact that he never proves why rehabilitation would work. C3 - Jail Hurts Job Chances I have 2 reposes: First, on your record it states "criminal," not if you were jailed or rehabilitated. The manager of a job would not know the difference, so your argument is flawed on an underlying basis. Second, "With rehabilitation it is more likely that someone will hire them and therefore keep them out of trouble." <-- When did you once prove this logically or empirically? [overview arguments] 1. He never once proves at all in his case why rehabilitation works, he just asserts it does 2. His case lacks solvency [Important Notes] 1. "I'll post more points as the rounds progress" --> You cannot let him do this, it is 100% abusive, and the round would have no constructive value. The posed points are the points for the round, nothing more. 2. He never proposed a value or value criterion, thus my value structure is the only brightline for the round. This has 2 impacts: First, if he does not link in to the structure he automatically loses (following LD debate style) Second, he can propose a CP and thus would not need to link in, but he didn't in the AC thus he cannot propose a CP for the round. Thank you ladies and gentlemen and esteemed judges