Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabi

I affirm: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation [Definitions] 1.Misdemeanor: a crime less serious than a felony 2.Ought: should 3.Replaced: used instead of 4.Significant: fairly large 5.Rehabilitation: the restoration of someone to a useful place in society [Observations] 1.The affirmative burden is simple: prove that the US government should use rehabilitation rather then jail time when dealing with misdemeanors. 2.US framework 3.Rehabilitation is used in junction with jail time, thus the negative must prove that jail time should be used solely by itself, whereas the affirmative has the balance of the two. The resolution states to be replaced with significant rehabilitation; however the resolution is flawed on this basis, because it is impossible to unconditionally replace jail time with rehabilitation. Thus, for the sake of reasonable fiat, we must look at status quo circumstances. The affirmative values Societal Welfare. This value is necessary for the following reasons: 1.The purpose of punishment is to have a utilitarian purpose, i.e. the welfare of society. 2.Societal Welfare gives a specific bright-line as a way to judge the purpose of punishment. This value is achieved by the criterion of Lessening Recidivism (- committing the crime again). This value criterion impacts the value for the following reasons: 1.Societal Welfare is better promoted when criminals returning from incarceration will not commit recidivism, on the fact that less crimes = benefit for society. 2.Lessening recidivism relieves a burden form the state, i.e. lessening recidivism will stop multiple offenses and thus the state does not need to incarcerate or rehabilitate the offender again. Contention I: Misdemeanor Criminals have a Better Chance of Being Rehabilitated Misdemeanor criminals as opposed to felons have a better chance of successful rehabilitation. Misdemeanor crimes are less, e.g. stealing a candy bar. Whereas felons have raped and killed, misdemeanor criminals have either stolen something of low value or violated a traffic law, etc. The state has a better chance of rehabilitation on misdemeanor criminals then felons because misdemeanor criminals are more likely open to the treatment. The most credible research (done by a technique called meta-analysis) demonstrates that the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism rates of between 10% and 12% [US Rehabilitation Department], which would promote a reduction in crime that is, by penological standards, massive. Contention II: Negative Uses Both Jail and Rehabilitative Mechanisms Rehabilitation, under the penal system is never done just by itself. It is done in conjunction with jail, house arrest, etc. Thus, the negative is more desirable, on a resolutional level, because it allows for both jail time and rehabilitation, whereas negating does not give you this option. Thus, the jail time allows for temporary reduction of recidivism, while the rehabilitation works for the long term goal of reducing recidivism while back in society.