Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

This has so far been a great experience, and I thank you. Now, I would like to clarify some things: 1. Most recent recidivism rate available. The 2004 recidivism statistic is the most recent number available on federal recidivism. 2. Safety valve offenders must have hit the mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). You have MMS that "catch" so to speak, certain offenders that have committed crimes and mandates a minimum sentence for them. Safety valve offenders are those who met certain criteria and hence received less prison time, as a feeble excuse for a second chance. 3. All offenders who go through the safety valve are drug traffickers. The safety valve offenders are those low-level, non-violent, first time offenders who have the potential for great societal harm if put through prison, and great societal benefit if put through a reasonable program, like the one this plan would implement. As for your 'new stats', what are they referring to? We must see them posted for them to count. If your stats are referring to the number of prisoners in the federal system, my statistics on that were from June or July of 2012 and hence my numbers are still more reliable. As to your point about another valid option, I would thank you for conceding this point, and I make special note of this to anyone who is voting. In response though, I will simply reiterate my previous response, that A. alternative sentencing is better than this option, I showed this with sources, my opponent has provided none; and B. even if this plan was not the BEST plan, it is a good idea because it is BETTER than the CON position. PRO says that this plan has net benefits, this has been proved. PRO says this plan is better than the status quo, this has been proven. CON says, there must be better options out there, so don't vote PRO. I ask you to do exactly that, vote PRO because this plan is better than the status quo. As to my source not working, yes, I agree. It does not seem to be working. I apologize. Here is a second piece to corroborate this point. I would also like to point out how the CON has tried to point out deficiencies in my support whilst he provides none. Preponderance of the evidence Supports Rehab Roger Przybylsk/ RKC group/ RKC Group provides applied research, training and technical assistance services to public, private and nonprofit organizations with a focus on public policy and justice system issues. / This project was supported by Grant 2004-DB-BX-0033 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance through DCJ's Office of Adult and Juvenile Assistance. / "What Works"/ February, 2008 . http://dcj.state.co.us... Lipsey and Cullen (2007) concluded that "the preponderance of research evidence, therefore, supports the general conclusion that rehabilitation treatment is capable of reducing the reoffense rates of convicted offenders and that it has greater capability for doing so than correctional sanctions. " I would also like to note that because very few if any of the offenders we are addressing will be in need of drug rehab, this point is inconsequential. The real 'meat' of the program is the vocational training for these drug traffickers which has been shown to be extremely effective. As to your logical reasoning behind this point it is flawed because it assumes that drug traffickers are locked up for the rest of their lives. To the contrary, the specific offenders we are dealing with in the safety valve would never get a life sentence. To this end, they will get out, and harm society even more. I have several responses to my opponents arguments about how vocational training will not succeed. 1. Biased sources. His sources were from the bureau of prisons, clearly a biased source on the success of prisons. 2. No statistics. His sources simply said that prison provides drug treatment and vocational training, not that it actually succeeded. If we look at my source, which has not been addressed, it says that prison, which apparently includes these programs, increases recidivism 7%. 3. Alternative sentencing better. Until CON can show that sticking with prison will provide a success rate higher than that of alternative sentencing, I ask you to vote PRO. CON then proceeds to argue that my source wants to redo the safety valve, not replace it, this is irrelevant. We have both agreed that the source is telling the truth and upon the number of people going through the safety valve. Hence, this plan's cost savings have already been assured. $1 billion in savings is the result of this plan. Very cost efficient considering it improves effectiveness in reducing recidivism as well. CON seemed confused at the next point, saying that making the offenders pay for the program is somehow a bad thing, or would cause it to fail on the federal level. Aside from offering to source for this purely speculative conclusion this makes no sense. In fact, their having to pay for 9/10 of the program is part of the reason it succeeds. Next, my opponent mentions a $23 million dollar cost to this plan, 2 responses: 1. Cost part of the plan. I said that implementation would cost 7 times less than prison and got this number. (math available upon request. Although, you might want to do it in the comments for quicker reply and use in creating arguments) 2. Irrelevant. Even if this 'unforeseen cost' was 4 times what the CON said it would be the savings so outweigh the cost that you should still vote PRO ($1 billion savings. $23 million 'unforeseen cost'. ) Con then proceeds to say that the drug dealers won't be able to afford this. My response is: Historical precedence. This system worked in Dallas, and so far CON has provided no reasoning or counter-support as to why it wouldn't work with these federal offenders. I would remind you that these offenders make sometimes as much as $2500 dollars a year, no typo. Minimum wage would be more than enough for them. Well, we have already addressed the idea of proposing a second course of action, so i will stick to CON's basic argument that federal offenders won't be able to find work and therefore they will go back to crime. 2 responses: 1. Historical precedence. Dallas got it right, no CON response. 2. Any succes is better than prison. Alternative sentencing has been PROVEN to work much much better than prison, however, even if only a few people were helped by this plan, it would still be better to vote PRO because the end result is reduced costs, and reduced recidivism; vs. prison where you get increased cost and increased recidivism. More support: Research Triangle Institute/ February 2006 rti. org/page. cfm? objectid=45f0612f-80cf-452e-b9466cad5f1b786c Alternative programs that divert felony drug offenders to substance abuse treatment programs rather than prison terms could save the U. S. criminal justice system millions of dollars and reduce recidivism, according to a study conducted by researchers at RTI International. The study, funded by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a subcontract with the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, was published in the latest issue of Justice Research and Policy (Issue 7, Vol. 1). "The study shows that drug treatment programs for felony offenders provide great economic benefits to the criminal justice system and reduce recidivism rates among offenders, providing societal and economic benefits," said Gary Zarkin, Ph. D. , principal investigator for the study. "Based on the results, policymakers should consider diversion programs for higher-risk drug offenders in addition to low-risk offenders usually eligible for such programs. " Because PRO has proven that there is a harm, that this plan would fix the harm and achieve the goal of cost effectiveness through reduced cost and recidivism, that I ask you vote PRO at the end of today's debate round. Thank you.