In the United States, rehabilitation ought to be used instead of punishment.

Unbeatable and rigged? You chose to accept! I am just trying to find other people's views. Please do not blame me for having this debate, since you are the one who accepted it. Moving on... PUNISHMENT- A penalty inflicted by a court of justice on a convicted offender as a just retribution, and incidentally for the purposes of reformation and prevention. REHABILITATE- To attempt to restore formally to former capacity, standing, rank, rights, or privileges. So my opponent suggests correction facilities ought to be used instead of inflicting punishment. I see two problems with this: One, punishment already achieves everything that rehabilitation does. It reforms, and prevents. Rehabilitation reforms. When dealing with crime, which seems to be the better option? Two, punishment PREVENTS crime. It deters would-be-criminals from committing crimes in the first place. Are you more likely to kill someone if you think you might be"corrected" at a facility, or if you know that you will be brought to justice by means of punishment? John Locke states in his social contract that one forfeits his own rights when he violates another's. Under rehabilitation, justice cannot be achieved since there is no reconciliation. No price is paid, no crimes are deterred, and justice fails. My opponent fails to see a major flaw within his case. This facility that he suggests IS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT. It is removing people from society, detaining them against their will, and limiting their rights. Either way you look at it, this point flows to the negative. If you just see this as rehabilitation, then by definition, no justice is done for no price is paid. If you see this as punishment, then you are negating the resolution already. "Only a smart portion of people think like you." Why thank you. "They will likely to go back to the Mac store, and commit another crime. (Steal another ipod, injure the guy who called the police on him, etc.) He hasn't been talked to with, instead he was placed in prisons with dangerous people. They didn't receive any kind of counseling. This can be proven by the statistic that 2 out of 3 people will be re-arrested for committing another crime." Really? So say you steal an ipod, and are locked up for a while. When you come out, you just want to do it again? Right, because that worked out SO well last time. Deterring future crime is one goal of criminal sentencing. The idea is that pain inflicted by punishment is justifiable if, but only if, it is expected to result in a reduction in the pain of crime that would otherwise occur. This is based on the assumption that human beings are rational actors who balance the expected benefits of the proposed conduct against its risks, considering such factors as the likelihood of successful commission of the crime, the risk of detection and conviction, and the severity of the likely punishment. It is thought that the rational actor will avoid criminal activity if the perceived pain (i.e., the punishment) outweighs the expected pleasure (i.e., the criminal rewards). Protective retribution views punishment as a means of securing a moral balance in the society. The theory is that society is made of rules and equilibrium exists as long as everyone follows the rules. Everyone is similarly benefited and burdened by the rules. If a person fails to exercise self-restraint, he destroys the balance and becomes a free-rider. He benefits from the system of rule without accepting the same burdens as everyone else. By punishing the wrongdoer, society demonstrates its respect for him - society treats him as a responsible moral agent. Also, punishment allows the offender to pay his debt to society and to return to it free of moral guilt and stigma. Retribution can also be viewed as victim vindication. According to victim vindication, by committing an offense, a criminal implicitly sends a message to the victim and society that his rights and desires are more valuable than those of the victim. Punishment corrects this false claim. It reaffirms the victim's worth as a human being in the face of the criminal's challenge. As you can see, the only way to achieve justice is to obtain the social equilibrium by punishing crimes. If we fail to do so, we fail to achieve justice. For these reasons, I can only negate the resolution. Thank you. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.lawfiles.net...