Rehabilitation ought to valued over Retribution in the US criminal justice system

"Since my case rests upon determinism quite heavily I will start by explaining it further. Firstly, I will state that it is not possible yet to determine it nor might it be by humans in the future. The reason for it that there are too many things you need to take into account. By that there is no way you can know it all to predict the outcome of certain events. A lot or everything is pre-determined because like a computer, life is a summation of routes were this is one of them. Only difference might be that a computer is limited and the possibility within life is not. The fact that you are the person you are now is not because you have chosen to be. This is because even before you were born it was determined that you would be here. Also, with certain settings within your psychological frame work. Would I recreated an environment with pre-determine settings and situations. Knowing you entirely thus having all the information necessary. Your response to it can be exactly predicted. This simulates what happens in every day life and by that proving that the arguments of determinism and culpability you used are incorrect. Don't make the classical mistake in saying that Einstein said it so it must be true. In psychics truth will take form when it cannot be proven wrong and by that making it truth by default.I hereby conclude that everything rests upon this because determinism proves that it is not they individuals fault and by that relinquishing the fact that they don't have free choice. For lack of it means not part in conscious participation and therefore not permissible in punishing them. I might not work within the us system now to rehabilitate all prisoners, but that does not mean it should be denied.I'll start by attacking determinism. If everything is predetermined, then we shouldn't even concern ourselves with what the state ought to do, because what it will do is already predetermined. The debate is pointless if determinism is true. Even from a simple scientific perspective, nothing is predetermined. Look up Schrodinger's cat, anything to do with Quantum physics. Everything is just a probability wave. You are TOTALLY wrong. I didn't say that because Einstein said it, it must be true. I'm saying Einstein and Newton were WRONG. Read my arguments thorougly so that you don't misconstrue them. Quantum Physics works, and it shows that nothing is predetermined even if you are omniscient - because its all just chance. And not flipping a coin or rolling a dice chance - pure randomness, with no variables affecting it. Also, I would like to add that just because you are in a minority does not mean the majority should have power to overthrow the wishes of that group. It states that the majority is ALWAYS right. Which includes the fact that by it they automatically are morally speaking justified in exercising that power, which is not the case. For the obvious what if scenario whereas the majority wants to do something morally wrong.And I'm not saying the majority overthrows the rights of the minority. I'm saying it's unfair for the government to use the resources of 93% to prioritize and unfairly pay for the education and rehabilitation of 6.6%. If I wanted therapy, I'd have to pay for it... why not prisoners? Lastly, my case isn't even false if determinism is true. Even if criminals aren't culpable, they still gain unfair advantage from crimes. Even if none of it is their fault, this is true. Thus, they need to punished to rectify their unfair advantage - retribution. You can't rectify an unfair advantage by helping someone by providing rehabilitation for them. And even if criminals aren't culpable, so what? Look to my second contention - Why is it taxpayer obligation to pay for their rehabilitation? It's unfair.I urge a con/neg vote here for the following reasons:1) Don't look to determinism because it's disproven by quantum mechanics. Therefore you can drop my opponents entire case and I win.2) The government has to be fair, and benefit and burden people equally because people are equals. This hasn't been contested. Therefore it a) should rectify unfair advantages resulting from crime, with punishment and b) should not unfairly burden some people to unfairly benefit some other people.3) Even if determinism is true, my case still stands. My case has two main arguments, neither of which rely on the criminal being culpable.