Resolved: In the United States, Minor Jail Time Ought to be Replaced with Significant Rehabilitation

NOTE: Pro's Round 3 argument is posted in the comments section. He says the time glitch got him; and while I have no way to verify that, it's a small enough time difference that I don't really care; so I am accepting his Round 3 as posted in the comments, and ask that the judges do the same. I. Recidivism 1. Actually, my Round 1, as well as my Round 2 and now my Round 3, do not say anywhere that we shouldn't alter the status quo at all; and it is not within my burden to make such a claim. All I have to show is that we shouldn't replace minor jail time with rehabilitation. Thus, the central claim of my side throughout this debate has been (see the last paragraph of my Round 1), "the current system of minor jail time ought to be kept in place, and most certainly NOT replaced with rehabilitation. " Such a claim does not rule out the possibility that the problems with the status quo may be solved in ways other than completely scrapping the system. So, regardless of the seriousness of the problems that exist in the status quo, they alone cannot count as reasoning for moving to a system based on rehabilitation, or any other system that completely gets rid of the current one. This has been a central argument of my case from the very beginning, so it makes no sense for my opponent to claim that I have shifted my advocacy in any way. 2. The closest I ever came to suggesting that the status quo was working was claiming that it works better than rehabilitation would. Indeed, I think it's a useful deterrent, as I have repeatedly said; all I was clarifying in Round 2 is that it's not a PERFECT deterrent – which doesn't really matter anyway, because all I have to prove is that it's a better deterrent than rehabilitation would be. And while I have at least given some reason to believe it is so, my opponent has at no point given ANY reason to believe rehabilitation would be a superior deterrent to repeated offenses. 3. It's funny that PRO accuses me of "throwing a semantical argument at you" when it was he who looked up the definition of "significant" and attempted to twist it in a way that proved his point. What my opponent claimed in his Round 3 – that because we're talking about rehabilitation, we know the 'effect' we're talking about in the definition of 'significant' – is ridiculous. That's like saying running a 'significant' campaign for the presidency ensures that you will win. This would disregard the fact that the 'effect' we're talking about could very well be a number of other things, such as helping someone else win, such as Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000 helped Bush win, making it a 'significant' candidacy. In the case of the resolution, the effect of the rehabilitation program could EASILY be increasing recidivism rates (and indeed would be, considering I have given reason to believe so, and my opponent has given no reason not to believe so), or increasing costs, or decreasing efficiency. The fact that something has or is likely to have effect does not mean that it will fulfill its intent; it just means that it will PROBABLY change SOMETHING. 4. Again, the fact that a problem has been demonstrated does nothing to uphold my opponent's burden of proving that we ought to scrap the system in favor of rehabilitation. Such problems, where they do exist, can be solved in a much less drastic manner. II. Cost. 1a. Observe the following quote from my opponent's Round 1: "when criminals are unable to afford payment, they could be sponsored by the state in the same way the state provides the right for legal counsel. " My opponent has not responded to the fact that a rehabilitation program would be too expensive for most people to pay for, and he has left the door open for the government to pay for the rehab if the criminal can't; therefore, the government would end up paying for most of the program, and taxes would most certainly not go down. 1b. The rehab program my opponent provided as "evidence" of the short time span possible in rehab programs was a program for alcohol and drug abuse. That's not at all what we're talking about here. 1c. Cross-apply (I:3). III. Humanitarian concerns. To reduce my claim to saying we should "abide by the current system" is absurd. Yes, I want to keep minor jail time in place; no, I don't think it's a perfect system. That's why I have left the door open to fixing the system in ways other than completely scrapping it. And I have not changed my advocacy on this point. I still maintain that the roughness, as well as restrictiveness, of prison can act as a deterrent to recidivism. All I have acknowledged beyond that on this point is that it can sometimes get out of hand. When it does get out of hand, it is a problem that ought to be fixed. But that can easily be done without completely getting rid of the system. IV. Efficiency. The concerns regarding efficiency my opponent has brought up really have nothing to do with efficiency, as I said in Round 2. That's why I didn't address his analogy. The fact of the matter is that my opponent has conceded the efficiency point; the other concerns have been debated in other areas, and I have made a good faith attempt to keep them from clouding this area of the debate. Determining sentences in the current system is handled based on guidelines set by state and federal laws. There would be no way to impose such guidelines on a system that must take into account the mental, psychological, and emotional fitness of each and every criminal, as every one would be different. My opponent has not responded to my questioning of what "current rehab programs" he's talking about. If he means programs for drug and alcohol abuse like the one he presented earlier, then again, that has no bearing on this resolution. Education of criminals most definitely would require individual attention; you'd have to find out what each person knows, how best they learn, and what they need to learn to succeed in the way they want to succeed. And I think it's rather obvious that individualized treatment is essential to ANY effective psychiatric assistance. V. Punishment. Again, cross apply (I:3). Once again, appeals to tradition are not always faulty. It's faulty mostly when it is the only argument, or one of very few arguments, in support of something. Conversely, when there are a large set of other arguments in favor of something (see above), adding in the fact that it's the way things have been done for thousands of years – without any major social problems as a result – indeed strengthens the overall argument. In other words, I'm not saying (as my opponent suggested), "we should keep this crappy system just because we've been doing it for thousands of years"; rather, I'm saying, "we should keep this good system, with perhaps a few minor alterations, for all of these reasons; and the fact that we've had it in place for thousands of years with minimal problems further illustrates this point. " Why you should vote CON (Conclusion): 1. My opponent has given no logical reason to believe that moving to rehabilitation would lower recidivism rates. On the contrary, I have provided reason to believe that it would in fact RAISE recidivism rates. 2. A rehabilitation system would be more expensive than the current system; and while my opponent has suggested we let the criminals pay for it, it would be too expensive for individuals to pay for, and my opponent has left the door open for the government to assist. 3. The humanitarian concerns of the current system can be addressed without scrapping the entire system. 4. The current system is far more efficient, for a number of reasons, than a rehabilitation system would be. 5. The current system provides punishment for crimes (which gives peace of mind to the victims and their families, and lives up to thousands of years of conceptual development in criminal justice), while rehabilitation would not.