Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above Retribution in the United States" criminal justice

Thanks to Consumnator with being patient with me. I apologize for not checking this website enough.SO let's begin.The fundamental problem my opponent has in his attack in his previous speech, is the fact that he completely ignores all of my evidence/cards that were clearly revealed in the very first speech.He cannot claim my case is unwarranted without attacking my actual evidence.He claims I provide no real warrants for these claims.Claim 1:"Drugs and Alcohol are the primary cause of crime."Claim 2:"Nearly a 100% of all crime involves some sort of addiction, or problems that are caused by the addiction."For both of these claims, extend the multiple Bureau of Justice cards and the FBI card that were already stated in the first contention. Perhaps he missed them?Extend Bureau of Justice Cards in Case. I'm not typing them here to preserve space. If my opponent wishes to claim that these cards are insufficient warrants to the impact drugs,alchohol, and the gangs surrounding the drugs, he would have to attack each card individually. If he does not not, I win this contention and both of his claims.I stated "The Department of Justice proves that rehabilitation is inherently ineffective when it comes to stopping crime."I believe that was a typo. It meant to say retribution. I assume my multitude of cards proved this. EXTEND EVERY CARD in PREVIOUS CASE. It would be ridiculous if a judge votes me down for this.I will go on to defend my case.Quote:The point of punishing is to prevent the majority of people rioting or panicking due to the feeling of an ineffective justice system being in place. Even if some criminals in the system re-commit, the punishments should be based on what the majority feel they would be protected" by best." RebuttalI want the judge to evaluate this. Is a system in which 50% of ALL CRIMINALS (Lubuglio and Jane Evidence)convicted and sent to jail and commit crimes once again supposed to create "peace and happiness" and prevent rioting? My opponent would have to prove to me that people are satisfied in the fact that half of the countries criminals are revidists. An argument that claims recidivism makes people unhappy is definently more believable than an argument that claims revidivism keeps people satisfied.Also, I want to accentuate the fact that he agreed to my Morality (practically Utilitarian) Framework, which means we have to be protecting the lives of the most amount of citizens. Clearly if half of the country's criminals commit crimes once again, the citizen's are insufficiently protected. I think my opponent and I can agree that crime hurts society, and more crime hurts society more.Also, let's dwelve on the purpose of the justice system. If my judge thinks the Justice System has ANY INVOLVEMENT in preventing crimes from reoccuring, you'll be dropping this argument.Quote:" Rehabilitation lets criminals out, often with much lighter sentence time-wise than retribution so the point is irrelevant.Additionally, while retribution involves life sentences and death penalties a system based on rehabilitation offers no such facility "RebuttalWhy is a lighter sentence bad? Also, I don't see why rehabilitation can be used from minor crimes that stray away from life-in-prison and the death sentence. Retribution can be used for death sentence and life-in-prison, since keeping them off the planet forever sometimes is the best option. The purpose of rehab is to prevent minor criminals to become much more severe criminals, in which retribution fails to do (Extend Lubuglio and Jane card)Quote:"The same applies to rehabilitation. Additionally this is false due to death penalty and life sentences."RebuttalDefinently not. My opponent once again ignores my cards in my case.There has been numerous cases in which rehab was extremely efficient in stopping recidivism.The National Criminal Reference Justice Service evaluates 95 courts, in which average an 85% success rate. Compare this to retribution's 50% success rate. Adam Lamparello evaluates a court throughout two entire cities, with an average of a 77% sucess rate. This isn't why retribution is flawed and additionally it isn't any less relevant to rehabilitation.Rebuttal.This argument is weak. Extend all my cards, and look at my second contention. Once again, he doesn't seem to acknowledge my evidence.Quote:How is it ineffective at stopping criminals if they are stuck behind bars?RebuttalMy claim involved recidivism. Half of the criminals in prison repeat crimes again as soon as they are free from bars. Extend all my revidism cards.Quote Are you suggesting that the primary causes of torture, murder and rape is drugs and alcohol?Drugs, alchohol, and pressure from gangs are the primary causes of the majority of crimes, not all crimes. Phsychological issues are usually associated with torture,murder, and rape. Also, I don't see why being too intoxicated can impair a person's judgement enough to rape/murder somebody, or pressure from drug gangs. Rape and murder are definently part of the FBI Card I had in my case. On to his case Contention 1 - The psychopath. This argument was flawed because it holds little impact. He claims "[psychopaths] are clearly a huge portion of the population of criminals since the life of crime,", but doesn't prove this in any way. Sure, I know psychopaths cause crime, and who they are, but it doesn't matter unless it causes rehabilitation to reduce less crime and protect more lives than the retribution system.My opponent immediately loses this contention because it holds no real impacts because there is no proof that psycopaths are even a reasonable amount of society. For all the judge knows, less than 2% of the country could be a psycopath, or 100% of the country could be a psycopath. Prefer my arguments because I provide meaningful evidence that the judge KNOWS how many criminals rehabilitation will impact with substance abuse courts, and contrast this to my opponents in which he "assumes" a majority of the country is a crazed psycopath. Also, even if my opponent proves that a majority of the country is a psychopath, extend all my previous evidence of when rehabilitatino was successful. Contention 2: You can't rehabilitate criminals that committed the crime for gang culture.I definently do not see why not. Extend all my previous evidence of when rehabilitation was successful in stopping criminals. and cards, and extend all of my previous contentions. Also, my opponent claims the person is "merely obeying their will..". My argument is that any person who becomes associated with gangs (often associated with drugs) is more likely to commit crimes. This argument really isn't an argument at all, as he can't prove that rehabilitation is ineffective in stopping criminals. Contention 3: It's impossible to stop a criminal re-committing by any means other than retribution (which can also fail to do so)Once again, my opponent seems to look past ALL of my cards. So instead of exploding in frustration, I will just extend all my cards, which definently disproves this point. Rehab works considerably better than retribution. Conclusion:This is an inexplicably easy vote for the aff.Three reasons:1. All his arguments ignore my cards and pretend they don't exist. They definently do. Derp.2. None of his arguments hold real massive impact, and aren't sufficiently proven. Contrast this with my multitude of cards. 3. None of his arguments justify recidivists. 4. He violates my Util FW. More recividists definently means more crime, which definently leads to more infractions on society's safety.5. My cards disprove all of his arguments. No seriously. Like LITERALLY. Also, I want to eccentuate this. My opponent is NOT ALLOWED to provide NEW ARGUMENTS or NEW EVIDENCE in his LAST SPEECH, because then, I am unable to attack them at all, and he would practically automatically win all of his new evidence and points. He is only allowed to use the arguments and cards used earlier, just like I did.