Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

Now, I would like to clarify some things:1. Most recent recidivism rate available. The 2004 recidivism statistic is the most recent number available on federal recidivism. False. Here is an intensive study that shows recidivism rates are 25% for federal inmates. This study has a sample of nearly 150,000 offenders, which is vastly different than any other study [1]. 2. Safety valve offenders must have hit the mandatory minimum sentences (MMS). You have MMS that "catch" so to speak, certain offenders that have committed crimes and mandates a minimum sentence for them. Safety valve offenders are those who met certain criteria and hence received less prison time, as a feeble excuse for a second chance.Again, see the study just cited. 3. All offenders who go through the safety valve are drug traffickers. The safety valve offenders are those low-level, non-violent, first time offenders who have the potential for great societal harm if put through prison, and great societal benefit if put through a reasonable program, like the one this plan would implement. Where is Pro’s evidence that ONLY drug traffickers get the safety valve? Why wouldn’t first time non-violent drug dealers, growers, or users get the safety-valve? Why not fraud or larceny?As for your 'new stats', what are they referring to? We must see them posted for them to count.If your stats are referring to the number of prisoners in the federal system, my statistics on that were from June or July of 2012 and hence my numbers are still more reliable.Con's stats were cited and presented in the first sentence of Con's round two argument (after clarification points). Why are Pro’s stats more reliable when I was using stats from 2009 to use for my data, since most of it was from 2009? The difference between our stats was about 10,000 and separated by about three years, which makes sense. Also, I think it is important to state that Pro never cited the prison population via your source; you simply said it was 200,000, which your source says otherwise (217,000 and change). As to your logical reasoning behind this point it is flawed because it assumes that drug traffickers are locked up for the rest of their lives. To the contrary, the specific offenders we are dealing with in the safety valve would never get a life sentence. To this end, they will get out, and harm society even more. I have several responses to my opponents arguments about how vocational training will not succeed.First, I never said vocational training or drug treatment doesn’t work. I simply said it is already offered as the status quo. Why would it work in one instance but not the other, as Pro suggests? Additionally, I did imply that vocational training is irrelevant if no one would hire you. CON then proceeds to argue that my source wants to redo the safety valve, not replace it, this is irrelevant. This is relevant when Pro’s source is opposed to reform, which is what Pro’s position is.Next, my opponent mentions a $23 million dollar cost to this plan, 2 responses:1. Cost part of the plan. I said that implementation would cost 7 times less than prison and got this number. (math available upon request. Although, you might want to do it in the comments for quicker reply and use in creating arguments) And I showed how I came up with half of the savings cited using Pro’s evidence (savings per inmate). How are my calculations wrong? If my calculations show a materially different result, that means someone was wrong, most likely one of Pro’s sources.2. Irrelevant. … It is not irrelevant if I “proved” the savings were $423 million. It shows incredibility on Pro's sources. Alternative programs that divert felony drug offenders to substance abuse treatment programs rather than prison terms could save the U.S. criminal justice system millions of dollars and reduce recidivism…Why would this only save “millions”? I know this is from 2006, but if there is to be $1 billion saved in federal prisons alone, why would there only be a savings of “millions” NATIONALLY; this would include city, county, and state levels. This is another example of Pro’s use of sources that contradict each other. Con has yet to see savings of $27,888/inmate as stated, but has seen a mention of $25,000/inmate from a source. Pro underreports prison population by almost 10%. Uses recidivism rates that measure three years, but promotes a program that hasn’t been around that long, thus these figures are improper to compare.The constant misinformation is leads to incredibility.Con then proceeds to say that the drug dealers won't be able to afford this. My response is: Historical precedence. This system worked in Dallas, and so far CON has provided no reasoning or counter-support as to why it wouldn't work with these federal offenders. I would remind you that these offenders make sometimes as much as $2500 dollars a year, no typo. Minimum wage would be more than enough for them. First, Pro has provided no evidence of this income, Pro has simply stated it. Second, I have provided counter-argument stating the success is less than you offer (18% of one group fails). Also, I stated the program has been active less than recidivism rates measure, therefore it is too early to tell. Thirdly, Pro accuses Con of biased sources, yet this source is from the minutes of meeting promoting the success of this program to the county. If the BOP is biased towards inflated success, then why is this source above suspicion?Well, we have already addressed the idea of proposing a second course of action, so i will stick to CON's basic argument that federal offenders won't be able to find work and therefore they will go back to crime. 2 responses:1. Historical precedence. Dallas got it right, no CON response. There is not enough evidence to suggest Dallas has it right. Pro promotes this Dallas plan, which Pro constantly uses the figure of 450 clients (even though there is more). Using Pro’s words, ONLY drug traffickers get the safety valve and ONLY 450 in 2009. This success is based on only helping (450/1422) 31% of the arrested individuals [2]. It is easy to pick such a small sample and extrapolate from that. It is equally as easy to pick the most likely to succeed. We need to factor in the 15 people that failed in only one year’s time, out of 80 in the next group (18%).While that sounds good, consider this: the three-year reincarceration rate in Texas for those released from prison was 24.3% in 2007. The parole revocation rate for 2010 was 8.2% [3]. Con’s claim is that, since this sample is incredibly small, and we do not know the characteristics of these individuals, and the shortened time frame, all point to the Dallas experiment as on par to the status quo. 2. Any succes is better than prison… Any success is better than prison, but there is zero evidence that would suggest that these same individuals would not succeed in a supervised release, probation, or short prison term (all the status quo). Pro has offered no substantial reason, method, or evidence as to why recidivism is lessened. Only that it is. Yet, the Dallas experiment appears to be failing at its first expansion (the 80 clients) at the same rate as the status quo in Texas.Vote Con. http://www.uscourts.gov... http://www.drugfreedallas.org... http://www.lbb.state.tx.us...