Prisoners should be required to work while serving their time

"If one is to argue for a change in policy, one must clearly state a proposed change. It is then the opposition's duty to argue against the change." [Con] This is an odd statement in light of how this debate has gone. I am indeed arguing for a change in policy and I have put forth the change - prisoners should be mandated to work while in prison, where as they currently aren't. My opposition has chosen to take this debate into an area that is related to the implementation, but that is not at all what this debate is about. The topic is to mandate them, and I have presented two arguments for the case. The ethics of a free person being forced to pay the way of a prisoner – This was addressed in the second and third post when I argued that it isn't on ethical grounds. A Prisoner's way of life is way too expensive – This was addressed in the second and third round of this debate. There may be a number of contributing factors, but regardless of one's political or ethical views – if housing and taking care of a prisoner requires more money than a good portion of the free population something is wrong. I pushed the farm application as one opportunity to lighten the load on the state, which is cited. I then argued that the cost is too high and pointed to the level of income that minimum wage or poverty stricken free people are able to survive at, which is cited. My opponent has simply asserted that decreasing costs is not on topic, but how it is possible to discuss expense without acknowledging the costs? This is a prime financial concern and has been backed up clearly. My opponent has taken this debate into the realm of implementation, which needs to be discussed but this is not the venue for it. The current system is inefficient – I linked to the Washington State Corrections thoughts on the matter, and my opponent's response was that it cannot be accepted because they haven't shown the direct link all the way back to how they tallied their statistics. This is acceptable as a reason to question statistics, but nowhere within debate are statistics so scrutinized. The Washington State Corrections Dept. is an authority on Washington State Corrections Dept. and we are all are free to question it but my opponent needs to put forth a better argument to refute their statistics. Wages – This is neither here nor there, since their wages are not being addressed within the topic. My opponent is free to argue that their wages need to be taken into account, and she is correct, within the implementation of the topic. That was never my intention, and as such this is a red herring. These topics are important, don't get me wrong. They are incredibly important and need to be discussed at length in the implementation of a plan, but again… that is not the policy change that was put forth in this discussion. My opponent has chosen to argue about the implementation and from her arguments she is taking the stance that it's alright, but the infrastructure is too inefficient in her eyes is not in place for it to work and as has already been discussed… the implementation is not what was meant to be discussed. I will leave it to the judges now.