Resolved, rehabilitation ought to be valued higher than retribution in criminal justice systems.

Sorry for any inconvenience the debate format has caused because I couldn't translate your arguments. Since this is the final round I will do two main things. First I will address my opponent's arguments and then give some main reasons for an affirmative vote. In my opponents resolutional analysis he states,"'how do you rehabilitate a murderer.'." This is one area where my opponents arguments are flawed, as you do not rehabilitate a murderer. In every justice system, murder was punished with death until somewhere in the 1700th century. It is also noted that even the Christian emperor Constantine didn't abolish the death penalty, only cruel versions of crucifixion.[1] Rehabilitation doesn't work in most circumstances. Notice that the resolution states that, "Rehabilitation ought to be valued higher than Retribution." In other words It means that neither my opponent nor I need to contend that, "in all cases," our side is correct. With that in mind I will respond to my opponent's first contention. In his case, my opponent makes the claim that the death penalty has been used more since the 1970s and while I note that there is no source for this argument, I also see that this is subjective. What is the standard that allows for an increase in death penalty usage. If my opponent was using the previous decade or two for his study, he would probably be correct. However If you look back through the last few centuries you will see a decrease in the use of the death penalty, as it stayed relatively consistent according to population.[2] This brings me to a major point that my opponent misunderstood. He stated that I would promote the increase in use of prisons and prison sentences. While I may approve retribution I don't approve prisons. You may be wondering,"how on earth do you get rid of the prison system?" A famous proverb, "If you don't learn from the past or you will be destined to repeat it," shows that history should be the starting point for important decisions. Therefore, my model is of instant punishment. For my example I will use the English. For instance if you were to commit a petty crime, like minor theft, you would be put in the stocks and be kept there for a day. Notice the incentives to not be put in the stocks. First, you would be uncomfortable and subject to the weather. Second, you would be pelted with random articles including rotten vegetables. Third, your name would be a shame to both you and anyone you know. While I am not suggesting bringing back the stocks necessarily, it is a good example of how retribution is better than rehabilitation. To sum up this argument you either have to have a punishment harsh enough, or a rehabilitative system great enough to get the behavior change you need. Later on in his first point he stays in essence that rehabilitation systems should be used for everyone besides murderers. I agree with a limited us of rehabilitation for very few crimes, but to use it on everyone would cost an immense amount. Standard drug rehab centers charge between 10 and 20 thousand, per month! That is 4 times as much as holding a inmate for the same period.[3] My opponent said that I did not give specifics on how I was going to Increase punishment, he is correct. While I think that it is my job as the negative to give a general idea, the resolution says, "should be valued," not,"give a solution". My job is not to make the specific laws, it is to debate the value of retribution vs. Rehabilitation. Therefore my opponent unwittingly affirmed that I properly used the resolution in my case. In point one of my opponent's second contention he states that rehabilitation should be used after both; The criminals have had time in prison, and the murderers and high-level criminals have been punished. It seems that not only does my opponent's view have a lot of loopholes, but the prison system will still be a heavily used system. Something that will not decrease the violence, recidivism, or economic strain; The first two which my opponent mentioned. Finally in his third point of his second contention, he states that the prisons are flawed and would need MORE money spent on them to increase success of his program. Now that I have hopefully addressed all of my opponents arguments I will give you, readers some primary reasons for voting negative in this debate. 1. Criminals should be punished in accordance with the crime that they have committed, as stated in my first speech from a quote,"The idea that wrongdoers should be "paid back" for their bad deeds need not lead to a demand for primitive vengeance. Retributive justice requires that the punishment fit the crime and that like cases be treated alike. Wrongdoers deserve blame and punishment in direct proportion to the harm inflicted. Retribution can therefore be seen as vengeance curbed by outside intervention and the principles of proportionality and individual rights."[4] 2. Punishments should affect the criminal into behaving properly, as in the example of the stocks. 3. Retribution is important in all aspects, even in the economic realm. I hope that this debate will be enlightening, entertaining and For lack of another,"e" word, thought provoking. I am pleased with the arguments addressed and with the opponent's knowledge on the issue. Thank you for a very good, if not short, debate! [1]http://www.pbs.org... [2]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [3]http://www.rehabs.com... [4] Martha Minnow, Between vengeance and forgiveness