Being poor should be a crime and repeat offenders should be given the Death Penalty

1) Madness? THIS IS SPARTA"Now according to the United States government, 58.5% of people will spend at least a year below the poverty line some time in their life"What kind of an oppressive world would we live in if we threw people in jail the minute they became poor? This program is for people who are poor for an extended period of time but also do not have the means to crawl out of poverty and refuse to try. The percentage of people in poverty in the US right now sits at 42.6 million out of 311.6 million. http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.google.com...42.6 mil divided by 311.6 mil = 13.67% So that right there is the limit of how many people could potentially be imprisoned. When you eliminate those who already have the means to crawl out of poverty, or are not of working age, and have evidence to show they are trying to get out of poverty, then the real percentage of people who would be imprisoned under this program will crawl well south of 14%"what reason does a person go beneath the poverty line? Lack of income"Thank you Sherlock Holmes we were all wondering that...."Let's say none of these people can get work after getting out of jail, would my opponent justify the killings of 60% of the United States population?"Assuming that NONE of them can get a single job out of 4 tries lasting a span of 40 years (unlikely) then I would keep the option open, especially since the true percentage is south of 14% and not 60%.....2) Cruel and unusual punishment?"You are punishing people simply because they may have grown up in the wrong place at the wrong time."Whoa whoa, its not punishment we are helping these people. Also the only way to violate this law is if you are actively not seeking to try to improve your situation, not just by being poor. Parameter 2: "Poor people who are of working age and refuse to work and are poor are elegible to go to jail" If people are trying to help themselves, and they are doing a good job and have the potential to get out of poverty, they wont get thrown in jail. Also people who may slip into poverty who still have the means to recover wont get thrown in jail either. "So let us see, is the punishment too severe for the crime. Sending someone to prison based upon their economic status seems to be way too severe"Parameter 2, its only for people who are poor and refuse to try to help themselves. "I mean prison could maybe help some people, but, how prison is better than say, more and cheaper trade and technical schools"Oh well lets see, we can make a program to send people who do mooch off the system to jail to get their lives straight, or we can pay to send them to school where student loan debt has now surpassed credit card debt, where the success rate of graduation from there is 43%, compared to 60% from prisons!http://www.usatoday.com...http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com..." if you define justice as getting what you deserve, then, the poor deserve to be helped and raised out of their economic pit."This is aimed towards people who are poor who refuse to work and mooch off the system, when you put it that way then the justice equation gets pretty even..."Furthermore, you will be offending a good majority of the population, 60% to be exact"Oh yes the false number your using even though the program only affects 14% of all Americans TOPS. "A person should not to be punished for something which inherently is not their fault"Let me try again, Parameter 2: "Poor people who are of working age and refuse to work and are poor are elegible to go to jail"A person being punished for exploiting the government by going to jail for 3 and 1/3 years just so that when they get out they can have a greater chance to be wealthier doesnt sound like an injustice...." I mean prison is a horrible place, I hope my opponent will not argue this with me"I shant not deny this................................... No I wont argue it"why wouldn't a single punishment for one year even two years accomplish the same goal? Why 3.5 years? Why kill them at all?"Do the math, 3 tries at 3 and 1/3 years equals exactly 10 years, then for the fourth offense, the term is 10 years. The fifth time it is 20 years which is equal to all previous 4 sentences combined. It is then only after the 6th offense, after 40 years of the government giving them the opportunity to help them, then that person should be put to death. The amount of time and money invested into this person over a minimum of 40 years of helping them who has actively NOT tried to help himself economically and places a burden on society could justify him being put to death. "The only reason my opponent cites is for criminal reasons."Along with all of the government programs that taxpayers dump billions into to try to only lessen some of the many effects that are used to inefficiently fight the effects of poverty when other easier solutions are at hand. "At the very least, this year or two year in prison will show a person that if they get into drugs, if they kill a person, they are going to go to prison, for a much longer stretch."Sounds like a hell of an incentive to try to find work to me. 3) Wont change anything?"The only way to change things is increased police force presence"Increased police forces is once again another tactic that uses millions of dollars to only address part of the issue rather than fix the problem. Increased police forces do not cut down on health problems, drug addiction, divorce rates, high birthrates, or illiteracy. ============================================================================Poverty to criminal activity" In order to lower crime you also must raise educational rates as "Low education rates, by the way, are also linked to high crime rates."Low education = more crime,poverty = low education,so then poverty is indirectly linked to crime rates. It doesnt cause it they are simply related which is all I stated. "Would it not make more sense to keep people in school to lower poverty and thus crime rather than throw them in jail"I wish we could but the success rate of those schools are lower than that of even prisons. " Therefore, why not allow them to become rich instead of throwing them in jail?"WE DO, THATS HOW PEOPLE CAN GET OUT OF BEING ARRESTED!!! If people show they are trying to get out of poverty (Parameter 2) They wont go to jail. "slightly more than 4 in 10 offenders return to prison within three years"So thats about 40% per time that person went to jail. This program allows for five terms in prison before putting people to death meaning that the number of people put to death with be .40 x .40 x .40 x .40 x .40 Which equals 1.024%So if the 40% number is true then this program would naturally only end up killing 1.024% of everyone who is indicted. That is a success rate of 98.98%!!!!Death eliminates offenders" My opponent suggests we kill people because of the faults in the system."Twisting of my words much? The prisoners are partially at fault to you know, not just the system. The system though wouldnt fail since the prisoner is given five tries to help himself and still does not succeed, meaning that after 5 attempts there is clearly something wrong with the person, not the system. "Society benefits from it"Running out of space too. Society benefits from this program because crime affects all people, and crime rates are high in areas ridden with poverty. But this program targets the problem causing individuals who mooch off government programs rather then try to help themselves, not just people who are poor.