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

To save space, b/c means because. I will open with definitions and Resolutional analysis: Ought- indicative of moral obligation Replaced – used in the place of. Significant – a large amount; when used in comparison, synonymous with "more" B/c we are replacing jail time with "significant" rehabilitation, looking at the definition, we see that we are replacing jail time with more rehabilitation than there would have been jail time. RA: B/c the resolution uses the word "ought", it is the burden of the affirmative to show that there is a MORAL obligation to replace the jail time. If the affirmative fails to uphold this burden, there can be no affirmative ballot. Value: Justice A. Definition: To each their due. (Aristotle) B. Best: B/c we are talking about how we ought to punish someone, it only makes sense that we first find out what they are due. C. Not applicable on Aff I will show through my case how the criminals get their due on the neg, but you will see that is impossible for the aff to achieve this value, b/c affirming violates my criterion. Criterion: laws for utilitarian punishment A. Definition: Bentham's laws state that to decide a punishment, we ought to see if the punishment upholds utility. The laws hold that punishment is moral only if is does not have any of the following traits: (Mischief is an action's tendency to increase pain or decrease happiness) 1. The punishment is ‘groundless' Where there is no mischief for it to prevent; the act not being mischievous upon the whole. 2. The punishment is ‘inefficacious' Where it cannot act to prevent the mischief 3. the punishment is ‘unprofitable' where the mischief it would produce would be greater than what it prevented 4. the punishment is ‘needless' Where the mischief may be prevented, or cease of itself without it at a cheaper rate. B. util is the supreme moral decider All frameworks end with utilitarianism. All frameworks need utilitarianism to even know what is good. B/c all moral frameworks rely on utilitarianism, in the end, we must look to utilitarianism to truly judge morals. Also, utilitarianism is the reason we see good things as good. Why do we want security? To decrease chances of pain Why do we want our rights protected? To decrease chance of pain and to increase happiness Why do we want liberty? B/c being able to choose our actions makes us happy. (and decreases pain, since w/o it pain would ensue) Why don't we want to go to hell? B/c it is the epitome of pain. I. ) Affirming violates utility A. Punishment by "rehabilitation" is inefficacious Punishing people by rehabilitating them does not prevent the crimes. It simply tries to prevent repeat offences. B/c rehabilitation is less "scary" than jail time, it would deter less criminals and therefore NOT prevent the "mischief" that it is intended to. B. The punishment is unprofitable While the aff may provide evidence that "rehabilitated" criminals commit fewer crimes, you will see that people are also less afraid of "rehabilitation" than jail. B/c of this, it would actually make criminals more likely to commit crimes for a first time, driving the crime rate, and therefore the pain created up. Furthermore, punishing people with rehabilitation would cost more money (look to definitions, rehab is more time than jail) and would, only in some cases work. B/c it would cost significantly more money (have to hire people to run it, more security would be needed, etc) you would increase the pain of the INNOCENT populous. You would take these people, many of who already have little money, and take more of it. (even if it didn't truly effect much, the fear of loss of property is a pain) C. the punishment is needless Jail time works. I know that without this punishment, many many people would commit crimes. B/c people are afraid of jail, they are deterred from committing crimes. By preventing this, nearly infinite amount of "mischief" at a must lower cost in pain(it prevents more for less) you see that the switch in punishment is needless. D. The punishment (rehab) is Immoral B/c punishment by rehab is inefficacious, unprofitable and needless you see that it is very clearly immoral. As long as a single one of these reasons stands at the end of the round, it is deemed immoral, and you must negate. Finally, b/c it is found to be immoral, we have a moral obligation NOT to affirm. Aff case: Value: right to success 1. )WHAT IS THIS? The aff fails to define their value, and this should be reason enough to look to mine 2. )success in what? One can succeed in many things, not all of them good. For example, Hitler, for a large part, nearly succeeded in his genocide of people of Jewish decent. THIS WAS NOT GOOD. 3. )Success in not inherently good As you see in my second point, success can be a very terrible thing, and therefore is NOT a viable value for this round. 4. )Justice is good. B/c each person ought to get what they deserve, and b/c no one would (or can) contest this, justice is inherently good. Criterion: individual QOL 1. )This is not a moral framework "QOL" or "an individual's QOL" is not a framework b/c: A moral framework MUST: 1. )be consistent 2. )tell us what we ought and ought not to do 3. )Tell us right from wrong. Qol does not uphold any of these points. A. Consistent: What could be an increase in qol could be a decrease in qol of another. It is subjective to each person's taste. B. Does not tell us what to do: It tells us to "increase qol" (actually, "maximimization of qol" would, but I'm going to assume that's what the aff meant) without specifying how do to so. B/c we do not know what to do, we cannot act. C. Does not discern right from wrong: it does not condemn or promote any actions specifically. I'm sure the aff would say that it condemns stuff that decreases QOL though, so… All this tells us is that qol is important, if an ethic is to make prescriptions, then we have to have a good idea of what we are supposed to be promoting and avoiding. Also, It does not discern between different kinds of qol, and therefore, does not tell us right from wrong. the aff criterion is not a moral framework, looking to my RA, it does not provide moral obligation, and therefore you, as judges, CANNOT AFFIRM. 2. )criterion undefined. The aff does not specify what QOL even means. B/c of this, it IMPOSSIBLE to judge the round with this criteria, you must look to my, well defined and non-subjective criterion. Contentions: 1. )When misdemeanors stop, they commit felonies. Look to the numbers. .. there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between the number of felonies and misdemeanors committed every year. B/c of this, we can clearly see that they do not, in fact commit felonies. 2. )they stop committing crimes It still matters. B/c switching to "rehab" punishment increases pain, and violates the laws of utilitarian punishment, you see that we are clearly better off in the status quo. Status quo does. When your parents tell you "don't do that, it's bad" does this automatically mean you no longer EVER do that? NO. by removing the scary punishment (the burn from the stove) you find out that criminals never truly learn. If every time you were about to touch the stove, your parents grabbed your hand and told you it was hot, you would become curious and keep trying. b/c neg deters and aff increases pain, I urge you to vote NEG.