Resolved: In the United States, minor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

Let me begin by thanking you for hosting this debate. I hope this to be both interesting and fiercely contested series of rounds. Usually I'm not this polite, but I found your arguments interesting (though fundamentally flawed) and so I'll tip my hat to you as a show of respect. I. Value – Justice The system we are discussing is the Criminal Justice system. Needless to say, the validity and respectability of the Criminal Justice system depends on its delivery of Justice. In fact, I would go so far as to say the Only question at hand here is which method provides greater justice, prison time or rehabilitation. Justice is a more appropriate value for this round than Societal welfare. II. Criterion – Appropriate Punishment Interestingly enough though, with all that being said, the argument shifts back to the issue of Appropriate Punishment. But here, we are now looking at whether or not punishment is Appropriate, and by Appropriate we mean Just. And the fact of the matter is, rehabilitation is not a Just form of punishment. III. Rehabilitation is not a Just form of punishment A. Outside the moral jurisdiction of the state government Rehabilitation first of all is unjust because it is outside the bounds of the Social Contract. Society has the right, obligation in fact, to incarcerate those who violate the social contract through actions such as theft. But for society to "rehabilitate" those who commit minor social infractions, it would have to pass moral judgment on certain life style choices. Take for example the common misdemeanor of prostitution. The government has the right to short term incarceration, but my opponent wants the government to instead "teach" them that prostitution is wrong, and then "fix" them to make them "regular" citizens. B. Outside the realm of government responsibility Secondly, rehabilitation is outside the realm of government responsibility. No organization has the right to incarcerate an individual, except the state and federal judicial system. That is their responsibility, levying fines and incarceration. Teaching people how to live their lives? That is the responsibility of our state education system during youth, the responsibility of parents, and of course the responsibility of people themselves. Not the State and Federal criminal justice system. The usurpation of authority, and jurisdiction, that belongs elsewhere is also unjust, making it an inappropriate punishment. IV. Jail time, even for misdemeanors (under 1 year) is a Just form of punishment A. Foreknowledge Among the reasons why it is just to jail people for misdemeanors is foreknowledge. Everyone knows that all crimes come with the penalty of fines or a prison term. People know if you shop lift and you're convicted, you face a short period of time in prison. (Note: this does not preclude rehabilitation from being just. It simply states prison terms are just. Rehabilitation is not just for the reasons listed in section III). B. Comparative Short prison terms for misdemeanors are just because they are reasonable responses to acts of misdemeanors. Misdemeanors violate the social contract, but to a lesser degree than felonies. Felonies carry significant prison terms. Misdemeanors therefore are expected to carry lighter prison terms. Rebuttal: Furthermore, even if we accept booth the value of Societal Welfare and the criteria of appropriate punishment, Minor jail time is still an appropriate punishment while rehabilitation is not. Rebuttal (III): Minor Jail time IS an appropriate punishment (Societal Welfare) A. The Threat of minor jail time is an incentive to stop offenders. People do not commit misdemeanors because even though the prison time is short, there is still a corresponding prison time. That's why I don't steal from the convenience store down the block (although come to think of it, considering how much dating costs nowadays it might be a more efficient way for me to get laid). If we get rid of jail time, people would be more inclined to commit crime, which makes minor jail time appropriate since it discourages crime, thus good for society. B. Minor Jail time Does fit the crime. My opponent claims minor jail time teaches nothing. I contend it teaches quite a lot. Frankly, despite the power of television and movies, and the human imagination, it is still ultimately impossible for people to imagine what life in prison is like. People who commit misdemeanors get sent to prison for short terms. They then learn what life in prison is like. This increase in knowledge is quite good for society; especially since it then allows people to imagine how years of prison time would feel. Rebuttal (IV): Significant rehabilitation is NOT an appropriate punishment A. Significant rehabilitation is NOT a punishment for the common criminal. My opponent claims he would rather be thrown in jail than 20 hours of talking to awkward councilors. I wish that was the case. But let's be honest, who are we kidding? Since neither of us have evidence on this point, I for one am happy to let the audience decide on this point. If you had to choose between a prison time for a week and some number of sessions with an awkward councilor, which would You choose? B. Significant rehabilitation will NOT give a chance for the common criminal to be a regular citizen "again". Begin by cross applying my argument in III A. Then think about this, my opponent is confident that rehabilitation is possible, and furthermore, it's implementation, if possible, is good for society. But as we're all very aware, our state governments are not made of money. And money spent on rehabilitation is money taken away from education or economic development. The statement "even if I prove that one more person is saved by my significant rehabilitation and then I prove that fewer of the costs will appear" is fundamentally flawed since it assumes unlimited State resources. It's the same as saying, why don't we buy every student a state of the art laptop. If I show that one student's performance improves, then I prove it's for societal good. Or if I say why don't we put a police station on every block. If I show one crime is averted, then I prove it's for societal good. And furthermore, money spent on rehabilitation could very easily be money thrown away. "It may be the first time in these peoples lives that they actually understand why you do or do not do certain things". Or it may be not. What is the probability that "serious this "significant rehabilitation" would be effective? Can we talk people out of lack of economic opportunities? Can we talk people out of their natural tendency towards aggression and violence? Can we really talk people out of brawling after overdrinking at a brawl? Without knowing the details of this "significant rehabilitation", there is no way to measure its effectiveness, and in order to claim it's for the societal good, ultimately it is crucial to measure effectiveness. And for the mentioned reasons I am proud to oppose the resolution.