Resolved: Rehabilitation Should Be Valued Above Retribution

As this is the last round, this will be a general overview of the debate with some clarifications as well. Fairness My response to the evidence against rehabilitation’s actual ability to succeed was small because the evidence in favor of the proposition was zero. Simply mentioning Amy Whinehouse with no explanation or argument (and I would add, no source or citation either) does not suffice as evidence in any form of the term. If I lost points for that, it would be astounding. Moreover, I did indeed give a partial response to the claim (not detailed due to con’s complete lack of an argument) as mentioned at the end of the next paragraph. Con also said, “Indeed, since he claims that retribution is best when rehab is impossible…” I have no idea where con gets this idea, because I never said anything in the least. I stated that other actions may be valuable in absence of rehabilitation, such as deterrence, but never did I say retribution should be valued when rehab doesn’t work. What I did say was this, “It does not matter if rehabilitation does not always work, for it is still something we must aim for in favor of retribution. And if it fails, we do not turn to retribution but segregation and deterrence. ” As far as I’m aware, segregation and deterrence are not defined as “punishment enacted due to the receivers deserving of it”, so I don’t know what con is talking about. Retribution and rehab are not in themselves forms of deterrence but can be. Deterrence can be enacted without them and they can be enacted without deterrence so none are inclusive. Con points out that the debate is about those not deterred, but I'm not sure what this point is supposed to accomplish. Actions against those not deterred can be used to deter others. We’re only discussing deterrence because con keeps bringing it up but under the name of retribution, which it is not. In cons example, the warden fines the undeterred offender so as to deter other potential offenders as well as the original offender from re-offending. Con acts as if rehab will be tried until succeeded, stressing examples such as it taking years for a minor fraudster to be rehabilitated. This is inaccurate. Nothing in my case posits that rehab must be sought after till the very end. If it isn't working, the criminal can simply be kept away from recommitting his crimes by prison or other methods. This is just another example of con interpreting my side as an all exclusive justice model that revolves around rehabilitation only, which it is not. Segregation could be even more important than rehabilitation as long as rehab is more important than retribution. Responsibility Con was the first to claim this argument was only counter-retribution so I was hoping he would defend his accusation, but it doesn’t seem so. The viewers could probably detect it in the various points, but one such (rather obvious) example would be my two possible worlds example in R2 which clearly weighted a world with complete deterrence and a world with complete rehab. I also stressed (though mainly in R3) the value of every individual life as support for rehab. The responsibility argument, by the way, implies that if you value any life, you should value all life as those who act immorally are merely unlucky individuals shaped by nature in that way. I stressed the difference between "responsibility" in a non-moral way and responsibility in a moral way. Non-moral responsibility still exists within my case. Individual x causes y to occur so the responsibility of y falls on x. However, the moral responsibility of y does not necessarily fall on person x. This is true in the more obvious example of a mentally ill person who commits some act of violence. There is no moral responsibility on that person. However the non-moral responsibility is still on him. My argument revolved around the notion that objectively speaking, we are all in a sense very similar to the mentally ill person since we have no free-will (a point con never once disputed). Since people have no free-will, focus should be put on reforming persons in favor of enacting retributive punishment on them. No value of life is lost on those who suffered murder by valuing the murderers life. This is just revenge sounding talk. As I have always argued, all life should be valued because any individual person is only the way he is because that's how the environment and nature shaped him to be. Segregation and deterrence do not include in them the concept of “getting what you deserve” so they don’t match up with the definition of retribution. We can accomplish either goal without referencing retribution. Punishment due to the criminals deserving it, and imprisonment for the purpose of segregation, or speeding fines for the purpose of deterrence, are not related. Each form of punishment accomplishes a different goal. We don't know the future Punishment is relevant to rehab. Reforming individuals to good standing may many times be accomplished by use of punishment. This is true in the simplest forms such as not letting a child watch TV so as to make him obey his parents. Enforcing respect of the established laws by use of punishment can be a very effective means of rehab. Even if con were correct that my view of rehab requires retribution, that would not change anything because my arguments clearly support retribution being done away with whenever possible. So rehab without retribution is more valued than rehab with it. There is no value in retribution, but even if there were, con has only made arguments that relate to retribution’s external affects. In other words, con hasn’t shown how retribution has any value inside itself. In addition, con never disputed that rehabilitation has value inside itself. So it can be established that rehabilitation has internal value, whereas retribution does not. So in a world where either model only accomplished its own goals (rehab accomplishing rehab, retribution accomplishing retribution) retribution would be entirely discarded, but rehab upheld. Whatever we do now will change the future in some way but nothing we do now will change the past in anyway. Con’s retributive argument seeks to focus on the past to right past wrongs but though this might seem appealing on a level of justice, there is nothing it accomplishes and it still remains unjust. Sending a murderer to the electric chair because he allegedly “deserves it”, does not create a better society, and if it did, the act could better society without doing it solely because you think the murderer deserves it. Reforming criminals, however, necessarily creates a better society, because we are creating better people. Reforming the world is the best thing we can do because doing so creates a better society. Con has done nothing to refute the risks of retribution, which still stands as greater than those of rehab. In fact he clearly concedes it. Wrongly enacting retribution is far more costly than wrongly enacting rehabilitation but since con hasn't disputed this point, I'll end my side of the debate here. Thanks again for the good debate, and thank you to the voters for judging. I just ask that all voting be as fair and unbias as possible, thanks.