The American crim justice system ought 2 place a higher priority on retribution than rehabilitation

"The biggest problem I can see with the style of argument being presented is that at no point is there ever a clear illustration of what a system that was purely concerned with rehabilitation would look like." As you stated before, the resolution isn't about choosing one or the other, it's about placing a higher priority over one or the other. There is no point in arguing for total rehabilitation if that's not what the resolution says. "All the studies cited take place under a system which Pro believes 'places no emphasis on rehabilitation and is into the whole "tough on crime" notion' so these inmates eneter prison first, and through prison are introduced to rehabilitation programs." I apologize for my laziness, but there is a program in Oregon where the prisoners work simple office jobs for the government while in a rehabilitation program, putting in the same number of hours as taxpayers and saving the cost of state employees. This benefits the economy and helps the prisoners build a resume and important life skills for when they return to society. In Ohio there is also a rehabilitative program where more than 24,000 inmates are currently working and earning their keep. There are many forms of rehabilitation, so sorry that I only presented one... here's a general overview of what more emphasis on rehabilitation could include (based on a few programs that were tried out in the 90's)... Rehabilitation is the act of restoring people to a useful place in society. It can be achieved through in-prison counselling, sort of "half-way" houses like in the Key-Crest program, actually putting prisoners to work while they're in prison, job training, drug treatment, literacy programs, helping prisoners write a resume, etc. Rehabilitation isn't perfect; there is a chance of relapse into crime/drugs if applicable, but it is plenty better than no rehabilitation at all. [stats'll show you that; key crest] Rehabilitation needs to be a major part of the U.S. justice system because more than 95% of state prisoners return to society, and 70& of them get in trouble again. Whether you believe we should help out inmates or not is up to you and your morals, but rehabilitation is crucial if we don't want to waste our money on locking up prisoners time and time again that really just need a bit of guidance. "What we do have are empirical examples of families reactions when the murderer of a loved one goes free after a year, or gets off on a technicality. They do not feel whole, they do not feel restored meaningfully." Of course, we ALL symphasize with them, but does rehabilitation = getting people off on technicalities? I think not. It's about helping inmates learn life lessons for when they get out of prison, and rehabilitation programs definitely doesn't support the notion of getting murderers off. Perhaps it would offer more counseling for those serving life sentences, but rehabilitation isn't saying "screw it all, let's put everyone in a rehabilitation program then let them out after a month!" Oh ya and Steve Doell, the president of Crime Victims United of Oregon, whose 12-year-old daughter was killed walking home from a school bus stop, said [in support of a rehabilitation program in Oregon I mentioned earlier]: The thing people need to know is that most of these folks in prison are eventually going to come out again. So we think it's smart policy to try to change them while they're locked up, so that when they return to society there will be fewer victims on the street. BAM. mmk... "Serving justice -is- about making people happy." Give me a definition that says justice is the act of making people happy and I will take you seriously. Justice is the quality of being just or fair and being fair is being free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception, according to Princeton's definitions. Isn't going with want the people want, the victims want, favoritism? There isn't always a 'victim' anyways, so my opponent's argument is flawed. Even if priority on retribution was just for victims, that would only be a portion of criminal cases. "Of course the notion of revenge has relevance in our society, it is the very core of our intuitions towards justice. " Ew. Okay sorry. Yeah, anyways, does the Constitution talk about revenge? It talks about justice, yes, it talks about fairness, and equality... I see no mention of revenge. I see no mention of revenge in the defintion of justice. I see debates like "justice vs. revenge." Justice is a pretty abstract concept, but saying revenge leads to justice is extremely... flawed. idiotic. idk. Revenge is just a feeble imitation of justice. Can true justice ever be achieved anyways? Ok now I'm getting off-topic..... "We have no empirical evidence for what a system that put no emphasis on retribution would produce in terms of recidivism" I believe I stated earlier that, "In a two-part rehabilitation program in Delaware, called the Key-Crest program, the results were overwhelming. 30% of those who didn't participate in the program were arrested 18 months after prison, versus 71% of those who participated in the program." I realize this is one state, one program, and unforunately I cannot provide a nationwide statistic as the current system focuses on retribution, but that is evidence of what rehabilitation yields in terms of recidivism. [unless stats aren't empirical evidence? lol i forget what the three e's are, honestly, i'm an idiot...] ahhh i need sleep