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

Hello all,It is a pleasure to be debating today.If I may begin...DefinitionsRehabilitation: "to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like" [1]Retribution: "the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment"[2]Justice Systems: an established department, usually maintained by a government, which interprets the law of a nation in cases of it being broken and usually ordains a penalty(ies) for the crime committed. Resolution AnalysisThe resolution makes no provision to a certain state, nation, or country to which it applies. Thus, we debate whether or not all justice systems should favour retribution or rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is an equivocal term. One may ponder, 'how do you rehabilitate a murderer'. I will interpret the term rehabilitate in way that implies that instead of punishing the criminal and just letting them go, the justice system will work towards preventative measures, look into why the crime was committed and not just the fact that it was committed, and will help the perpetrator work through any issues that caused the crime to be committed.Contention I: Rehabilitation Promotes Less CrimeBefore we can talk about why rehabilitation promotes less crime, we have to talk about the goal of the criminal justice system. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to deter criminals from perpetrating crimes. Since the 1970s and the 'war on crime' ideologies that sprung from that decade, the federal government has cracked down on crime, increasing sentences and increasing the use of the death penalty. This is all to the aim of deterring potential criminals from committing crimes and ensuring that current criminals do not commit crimes again.This, however, is not working.The NIJ, National Institute of Justice published a report on recidivism, or one's ability relapse into crime after being released from prison. The study states that "Within three years of release, about [67.8 percent] of released prisoners were rearrested." [3] Obviously, the criminal justice system is not doing its intended job. Those who have committed crimes keep on committing them. When criminals engage in criminal activity and are caught, they are punished by being sent to prisons with other criminals. Obviously, putting bad people with other bad people is not going to make them good. My opponent is contending that we should punish everyone who commits a crime by putting them in prison with other criminals, which only promotes an environment of criminal activity. I certainly hope he is not stating that we should lash them in the town square or put them to the rack as punishment. The NIJ report then goes on to state,"The research team theorizes that although offender services and programs may have a direct effect on desistance, individuals must decide independently to transform themselves into ex-offenders. Programs and services may facilitate transformation, just as individual transformation — or the lack thereof — may moderate the effects of re-entry assistance" [1]Thus, one can only rise above the crime one has committed via self-transformation. Putting criminals together in a hostile environment does not breed a system of self-transformation.Now we can address why rehabilitation, in lieu of punishment, will redress crime. By putting individuals who have committed crimes through programs that increase their ability to contribute to society and educate them about their actions, one is creating a system of self-transformation. My opponent wants to throw criminals in with other criminals and hope for the best. It is a fact that repeat offenders make up the majority of internees in prisons. Thus, my opponent's system is false and is, indeed, only harming society. I propose a system wherein criminals are not placed in a dangerous and hostile environment, but are urged and guided through steps to increase their value to society, thus increasing their wellness and decreasing their likeliness to recidivate. Thus, my system of rehabilitation ought to be valued above that of my opponent, which only values punishment. Contention II: Methods of RehabilitationIn his case, my opponent did not actually tell us how he is going to increase punishment. He simply spoke about the theory and left it standing. I shall not commit such a fallacy. My opponent seems to think that simply increasing the death penalty and increasing incarceration rates will decrease crime. I have already debunked this theory in my initial contention. However, I have not told you how I intend to rehabilitate criminals and lessen crime. You see, we can talk theory all day, but the real meat of the issue comes in when we talk about the facts of the matter. And the facts yield to the rehabilitation system I proposeThe three pillars of my system: 1. Increase Academic Programs in IncarcerationI do not propose to let those who have committed crimes go completely unpunished; we still need a system that detains them and forces them to think about and regret their actions. Additionally, murderers and other high-level criminals must not be allowed to harm more people. However, the overwhelming majority of inmates are in prison for low-level crimes. According to a graph by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, nearly fifty percent of all criminals are incarcerated due to drug offenses [4]. With the next highest category, nearly seventeen percent, being incarcerated for weapon and arson crimes (non-lethal). Obviously, these are crimes that need to be punished. However, if we simply put them in with others who committed similar or even worse crimes, we will not be improving them and will only be decreasing their likeliness of succeeding. I propose that we put forward educational and academic programs to evolve these men and women from criminals to functioning members of society. By granting these people the ability to become educated and possibly even earn a degree, the justice system would be turning them away from the life of crime they had been pursuing and towards one ultimately better and more profitable. 2. Improve Community Outreach Instead of portraying the justice system as an us vs. you situation, engaging inmates in the community and increasing a positive presence of the police and justice systems in communities would form a rehabilitative and constructive relationship. Obviously, precautions must be taken when exposing criminals to the community, but that idea that men and women in prison are nothing but animals to be chained up is a result of the retributive system we have in place.By subjecting criminals to the inhumane and often cruel conditions of prison, we often begin to view them as non-human. This makes it difficult and even impossible for ex-convicts to get jobs or participate in society. By increasing the presence of the men and women incarcerated in the community, we would be showing society that criminals are not all mindless, self-centered, and apathetic. Instead, they are people too, who have been driven to extremes and need rehabilitative aid to get them back on track.My opponent is advocating locking criminals up for an even more extending period of time, widening the already gaping divide between society and those who have committed crimes. Instead of helping even low-level offenders get back on track, my opponent wants to eliminate almost all chance of them getting back on their feet and helping society and the world. With my proposed rehabilitative programs, we would help convicts be reintegrated into society. My opponent, however, simply wants to throw away all offenders under the pretense that 'they've learned their lesson'.3. Reduce Hostility of EnvironmentThe last and final aspect of my plan for rehabilitation is that which advocates making a more friendly and less hostile environment for convicts. Prison is often a dangerous place. Gang and racial violence are proliferate and the confined space often causes tensions to rise quickly and violently.By increasing education programs and community involvement, the environment is guaranteed to ease. However, by adding clubs, work options, and more activities, the violence so associated with prison can be eliminated.I want to assure you all that I do not want to turn prison into a comfortable life. Prison is meant to be a punishment. However, by educating inmates and making them able to function in society when they get out, we can make prisons a benefit rather than a harm. Prisons, as they are, only spawn more crime, violence, and animosity. By improving the mental and physical conditions of prisons and inmates, we can eliminate unnecessary violence and prepare prisoners for reintegration into society.ConclusionAs we see, the current state of the justice system is abhorrent. Convicts are being thrown in with other criminals, creating a hostile and crime-causing environment. My opponent would suggest that the justice system value this form of punishment even more. I detest and contend this ideology. We should punish criminals; prison should not be a relaxing experience. However, we must face the reality that the majority of inmates will be getting out someday. When they do get out, do we want them to be men and women who have been corrupted by evil in prison and who are induced to commit further crimes? Or do we want them to be ready to function in society as normal human beings? [1] http://www.dictionary.com......;[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com......;[3] http://www.nij.gov......[4] https://www.bop.gov......