Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

I affirm the resolution Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system. Definitions Valued - "consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of." (Oxford Dictionaries Online) "Note: Because the resolution uses "valued above", that does not mean I have to value just one and disregard the other. I can value some retribution; thus, I advocate for a system where rehabilitation is primary, while retribution is the fallback. Rehabilitation - Smith, Nick, Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice"as "Punishment intended to reform a convict so that she can lead a productive life free from crime." Value: Societal Welfare My value in this debate is societal welfare, or the overall well-being of society. Society is composed of both offenders as well as the general public, thus, to uphold societal welfare, we must provide opportunities to offenders while at the same time protecting the general public. Rehabilitation accomplishes both of these goals because few criminals actually reoffend. Value Criterion: Cost-Benefit Analysis My value criterion in this debate is cost-benefit analysis, which is weighing the advantages and disadvantages of an action to determine if it is worth carrying out. This is the best way to weigh two different systems of criminal justice to determine which one best upholds my value of societal welfare. By using this criterion to analyze the round, it allows the round to be analyzed by determining which system is better for society as a whole, much like how a real world policymaker would analyze the two. It allows the pros and cons of the two systems to be compared. Contention 1: Rehabilitative Justice Provides Benefits for Society a."Rehabilitation Lowers Recidivism Rates First, let"s examine the rehabilitative justice system. Since the goal is to provide the t societal welfare by protecting both offenders as well as the general public, we can use recidivism rates, or the rates of previous criminals reoffending, as a measure of its effectiveness. Low recidivism rates are good for both offenders and the general public. For offenders, low recidivism rates mean a greater chance of reentering society and functioning as a normal individual. For the general public, low recidivism rates mean that less crimes are being committed, leading to a "safety for everyone.""Studies have shown that various rehabilitative programs, such as education and drug rehabilitation programs, lower recidivism rates. Jon Aborn et al (Annie van den Toorn, John Hockin, Scott Jordon, Man Nayvelt, and Michael Finkelstein) "The California Prison and Rehabilitation." Ethics of Development in a Global Environment. "Stanford University 1999 Numerous studies have been published documenting the positive results from education and drug treatment programs undertaken within the prison system."With regards to"education, it has been shown to be extremely effective in preventing prisoner release and returns to jail."Wilmington (Ohio) College reports that recidivism rates for inmates who took degrees through their programs in two Ohio prisons were 18% versus a state average of 40%.~"A Boston University program tracked inmates in its program over a 25-year period and found that for those who earned BU degrees while in prison, recidivism rates dropped to less than 5 percent, compared with the 65% national rate. Therefore,"one may conclude that the education programs are working - prisoners are taking these skills into the real world and applying them successfully. Drug treatment programs have also had profound effects on recidivism rates. Arizona has been the first state to divert all of is non-violent drug offenders into probation and treatment instead of prison. Arizona reported that of 2,622 people on probation diverted into treatment, 77.5% have since tested free of drugs, a rate that is significantly higher than that for offenders on probation in most other states. And 77.1 % of drug users on probation, who are expect to help pay for treatment, made at least one payment.7 This has cut down on the "revolving door" phenomenon. Prisoners are cleaning up and staying outside of prison post sentencing. This evidence shows that these types of programs are working. Rehabilitation programs such as those just stated allow offenders to understand their wrongdoings while preparing them to lead a normal life, and become productive members of society. Rehabilitations lowers recidivism rates, stopping a cycle of crime before it can get out of hand. It protects both the community members and also the former offenders themselves, which upholds my value of societal welfare, both the criminal and the general public benefit. b."Rehabilitation is Cost-Effective Opponents of rehabilitation argue that it is expensive, but in reality, it actually saves the state money. In fact, the status quo is actually more expensive because individuals are reoffending, costing the state a lot of money. Rehabilitation lowers the costs of the criminal justice system because these individuals aren"t reoffending, and as a result, we aren"t spending money to imprison these reoffenders. Jon Aborn et al (Annie van den Toorn, John Hockin, Scott Jordon, Man Nayvelt, and Michael Finkelstein) "The California Prison and Rehabilitation." Ethics of Development in a Global Environment. "Stanford University 1999 " How do these programs pay off? First, it pays in reduced recidivism rates. A report from the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture states that"education is the key to keeping offenders from returning to jail"and they write that it"is very inexpensive compared to lengthy incarceration."In New York, it costs $25,000 to incarcerate a prisoner for one year; educating a prisoner for one year costs only $2,500. Educating inmates adds only 10% to the costs and could potentially save the state millions of dollars in the future by preventing recidivism. In addition to saving money on prison stays, there are additional benefits as well of the individual obtaining work: contributed tax money, contributing to the general economy, etc.. By giving these offenders the chance to reintegrate into society, we save money in the process. These savings could be placed into programs that improve societal welfare, such as education or health care. Contention 2: Retributive Justice Doesn"t Provide Rehabilitation"s Benefits a."Retributive Justice Alone Does Not Lower Recidivism Rates Many advocates for retribution will argue that a strong retributive stance in prisons is effective because it acts as a deterrent for crimes"However, most studies state the contrary. Bronsteen, John, Christopher Buccafusco, and Jonathan Masur. "Happiness and Punishment." University of Chicago Law School. JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 424 (2008). Web. (12-13) From these studies a pattern of hedonic response to imprisonment emerges. Initial entry into the prison environment triggers significant psychological distress and low levels of wellbeing."Within weeks, however,"inmates develop coping mechanisms that enable them to adjust to the situation and improve their"wellbeing. 62 After this initial adjustment period,"offenders maintain relatively constant levels of happiness"throughout the remainder of their terms.63 Thus, the "pains of imprisonment"64 are felt immediately, with diminishing hedonic penalties over the remainder of the sentence This evidence shows that retribution alone would not work due to the nature of human psychology. If retribution is attempting to make offenders unhappy the way they made their victims unhappy, then retribution is not doing its job. Also, this means that prison fails as a deterrent to reoffending, as levels of happiness remain constant throughout the entire sentence. Thus, we must have rehabilitation in order to lower recidivism rates and uphold societal welfare. Another reason that retribution fails is due to environmental factors. "Imprisonment and Reoffending" by Daniel Nagin, Francis Cullen, Cheryl Jonson. University of Chicago, 2009 The key insight is that regardless of the precise mechanism, prisons are marked by the presence of cultural values supportive of crime that can be transmitted through daily interactions. It is thus a social learning environment in which criminal orientations are potentially reinforced."Consistent with social learning theory (Akers 1998), it can be expected that"a custodial sentence will intensify a commitment to a life in crime. " Many offenders come from disadvantaged backgrounds. These underlying problems do not go away during that time period, thus, rehabilitation is needed to try and lift them out of their disadvantaged backgrounds. Due to the nature of prison as well as psychology, offenders never rehabilitate in a system of retributive justice, which doesn"t prepare them for life free of punishment. Therefore, rehabilitation is required in order for crime rates to be lowered and for societal welfare to be upheld, because retribution alone simply does not accomplish that goal. b."Retribution Fails to Benefit the Offender Finally, let"s examine the effects of retributive justice on the offender. First, let"s take a look at the average offender. Rotman, E. (1986). Do Criminal Offenders Have a Constitutional Right to Rehabilitation? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality, 77 (4). " The denial of rehabilitation and the consequent lack of concern for the future life of the offender amounts to a passive and indifferent acceptance of the inevitable deterioration brought about by the institution. Imprisonment itself jeopardizes other rights different from those forfeited through the commission of a crime and the consequent criminal punishment. Moreover,"a large majority of inmates are socially handicapped offenders who need basic support in the areas of education, job-training and fundamental social learning. Their social handicap is considerably"aggravated by the stigma of a criminal record, requiring additional efforts from the social agencies to support the arduous"process of social reintegration. " In all of these ways, the average criminal is handicapped by a harsh retributive stance. Without rehabilitation, none of these problems are ever solved for. They will have few options other than a life of crime unless they can be rehabilitated. A criminal lifestyle is bad for the offender as well as the general public, my value of societal welfare would be upheld under a system of rehabilitative justice because the offender benefits as a result. For this reason as well as others stated throughout my case, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in today"s debate. "