Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

I am sure you will do fine. Thank you for assuming the best of me, I did not realize that when i put the links into the box, they would be shortened. Here are all the links TYPED OUT, to avoid any errors. They are listed in the order I presented them in the first round. www. johntfloyd. com/comments/march11/Federal-Safety-Valve. htm justice. gov/oig/reports/BOP/a0416/intro. htm motherjones. com/mojo/2011/04/no-budget-cuts-federal-prisons dallascounty. org/department/cjab/media/CJABExecCommMinutes5-16-11. pdf fd. org/pdf_lib/Determiningthelikelihoodofsuccess. pdf dcj. state. co. us/ors/pdf/docs/ww08_022808. pdf Now, with that out of the way, I will move on to the arguments. To clarify, this plan would include 2 parts - the first would consist of alternative sentencing like job training and drug rehab to safety valve offenders, because safety valve offenders must be low-level, non-violent, first time offenders, who do not deserve the harsh prison sentence they are currently receiving. . The second part is the intensive supervision which ensures that they complete said alternative sentencing programs. My opponent's 1st argument, was based on the idea that this plan would simply enhance current supervised release options. This is false. As mandate 1 clearly states "Any offender who meets the mandatory minimum safety valve requirements will be placed in an alternative sentence tailored to his crime, with special emphasis placed on drug treatment and job training. " This means that offenders who would otherwise receive prison, receive alternative sentencing, which is ensured through intensive supervision, both of which have shown extremely successful in reducing crime and costs. Therefore savings will materialize. My opponents next argument was that our savings will not come about, due to less people coming through our plan than expected. I would like to point out several factors, any one of which would show this argument to be fallacious and therefore establish that this plan's savings will come about. 1. Outdated. My opponents information on convicts said 70,000 people in 03-04. My source says 200,000 people in 2012. - bop. gov/news/quick. jsp - This means that my numbers are true, and we really will save close to $1 billion. 2. Less is more. Even if this plan would save less than originally expected, you should still vote PRO because it saves more money than CON. Next, CON argued that rearrest does not mean they committed any crimes. My response is that no federal convict has been shown innocent. All 200,000 are guilty. That is why they are in FEDERAL prison. CON also argued that even if these criminals committed a crime that it doesn't prove they learned it in prison, this is correct. So I have provided a second piece corroborating the position that prison increases recidivism, and is hence a problem for low-level, non-violent, first time offenders. - Paul Gendreau and Claire Goggin, (Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of New Brunswick), and Francis T. Cullen, (Department of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati) " The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism," 1999 prisonpolicy. org/scans/e199912. htm In the case of the incarceration vs. community comparison, the data showed a 7% increase in recidivism (49% vs. 42%)16 or a f = .07, for those offenders who were imprisoned. CON continued to argue why my first number did not prove prison increased recidivism, however this new evidence clearly states it for all to see. It shows how prison is a problem. I would like to point out something my opponent said that is very important: while talking about the causes of recidivism, my opponent painted a nasty picture of horrible financial conditions that drive these people to do things that land them back in prison. And I completely agree, in fact, I believe my opponent left out the part about how most drug traffickers (the vast majority of those who fall through the safety valve) make much less than minimum wage, and would love to get a minimum wage job. However, due to the fact that the safety valve, which was in fact meant to give low level offenders a second chance, puts these people in prison, where we throw the murderers and rapists. This plan proposes to give them a REAL second chance. By giving them job training, this plan would actually help these people's positions in life, and hence decrease recidivism further than prison. Thank you CON for bringing up this important point. In his last 2 sentences of his second to last paragraph CON asserts that education and supervision will not reduce recidivism, and that the best thing to do would be to offer unfair tax credits to employers who hire ex-cons, which could be anyone from a terrorist to a murderer to a rapists to a drug kingpin. My response to both these is 2 fold: 1. No support. My opponent provided no support for his position. 2. Counter support provided. I have already provided numerous pieces of un-refuted evidence about the success of this plan in reducing recidivism. CON then proceeded to assert that my study from Dallas is "incomplete and prejudicial". In response to both of these points I say that CON has: missed the point. The point was that the Dallas system of intensive supervision keeps offenders from leaving the program or committing crimes during the program. It does nothing to fix the recidivism rate. The purpose of this plan is to have two parts, one part to reduce recidivism and fix the problem, and a second part to ensure that offenders comply with the first part. I would like to point out how CON has completely dropped the success of the first part so far; and has not argued that the second part has failed at what it was INTENDED TO DO. (keep offenders in the program, NOT reduce recidivism. ) Lastly, CON argued that there was another, better way to be cost effective - decriminalize drugs. And as much as I would like to argue against his point, it has absolutly no relavence to this debate round, as you are left with 2 options at the end of the debate round - 1 vote PRO and recieve the above stated benefits which means that you achieve cost effectiveness, and not decriminalize drugs; or 2 vote CON keep the status quo, achieve all of the above stated harms, not achieve cost effectiveness and not decriminalize drugs. Because you don't decriminalize drugs either way, it does not enter into the debate round and there is no reason for you to vote CON, and every reason for you to vote PRO. As I still have space, I will provide some more evidence supporting this plan as a good idea: