Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

The last person to argue this forfeited, I am trying again. As Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal said, Without education, job skills, and other basic services, offenders are likely to repeat the same steps that brought them to jail in the first place. This is a problem that needs to be addressed head-on. We cannot say we are doing everything we can to keep our communities and our families safe if we are not addressing the high rate at which offenders are becoming repeat criminals. All too often, offenders repeat their crimes, which decreases the safety of this nation. It is because I believe that there is a solution to this high rate of recidivism that I believe Alternative sentencing for certain federal offenders would be a good idea. Now, the purpose of the criminal justice system is to preserve order in society by reducing crime. To help you decide whether or not this is a good idea, I present the goal or benchmark of Cost Effectiveness. What I define cost effectiveness, as, in this case, is doing the best we can do, at the least cost possible. Now that the key terms have been defined and the goal for the round has been established, I present the facts of the status quo in my First Observation: Inherency Fact One: 37% of federal drug offenders receive the safety valve From the John T. Floyd Law Firm/ Houston Criminal Defense John T. Floyd, the founder of the John T. Floyd Law Firm, is proud to be Board Certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Criminal Law./ March 8, 2011 http://www.johntfloyd.com...... QUOTE In support of this conclusion, the Commission said it examined 24,483 drug offenders, and that 9,115 of them (37.2 percent) received the benefit of the safety valve provisions. These offenders who receive the safety valve, are low-level, non-violent, first time offenders who deserve a second chance. However, the status quo is content to give these offenders prison, the same punishment given to murders and rapists, regardless of the consequences to the prisoners, and to the public as a whole. There are two specific consequences to putting low-level, non-violent, first time offenders in prison, The first one, you can label as, High recidivism Incarceration leads to high recidivism From the Office of the Inspector General/ "The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducts independent investigations, audits, inspections, and special reviews of United States Department of Justice personnel and programs to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, and to promote integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in Department of Justice operations/ " March 2004 http://www.justice.gov...... Further, according to the most recent study conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) on recidivism rates for federal inmates, approximately 41 percent of federal inmates released to the community were rearrested or had their parole revoked within 3 years. Nearly HALF of every prisoner we put into a federal prison GO BACK TO COMMIT CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF RELEASE. Thus we see that prison serves not a tool to protect public, but a school of crime. The second result of putting low level, non-violent, first time offenders in prison, you can tag as, High cost Incarceration costs $6.8 Billion per year By James Ridgeway and Jean Casella/ A nonprofit news organization that specializes in investigative, political, and social justice reporting./ Apr. 13, 2011 http://motherjones.com...... Yet the Obama Administration's combined budget requests for FY 2011 and FY 2012 call for a full 10 percent increase over 2010 levels in funding to the federal Bureau of Prisons, to more than $6.8 billion. What all of this comes down to, is that in the status quo many nonviolent, low level, first time drug offenders are going to prison; because of this we have a high recidivism rate and a high cost to taxpayers. I believe that there is a way to decrease our federal recidivism rate. This other option has been proven to cost less, and be more effective at reducing crime. This plan is a good idea, Third Observation: The Plan Mandate 1: Alternative Sentencing Any offender who meets the mandatory minimum safety valve requirements will be placed in an alternative sentence tailored to his crime, with special emphasis placed on drug treatment and job training. Mandate 2: Ensured Compliance To ensure that offenders comply with their sentence, a system of intensive supervision, modled after Dallas' system, will be paired with the alternative sentences. The United States Federal Government shall enact, enforce, and preserve our plan. Our plan will go into effect at the start of fiscal year 2013 to allow for preparations. Funding will come from the BOP budget, however our plan will save of about $27,888 per inmate resulting in an overall net savings of over $984 million per year. And as the affirmative team we reserve the right to clarify our plan as needed in later speeches. We see evidence that offenders would comply with this plan, in our, Fourth Observation: Solvency Solvency 1: Dallas model 98% successful  Criminal Justice Advisory Board/ Leah Gamble, and Rebekah Truxal/ Leah Gamble, who is the manager of the Pre-Trial Release program, and Rebekah Truxal, who manages the Alternative Sentencing Bond Supervision Unit. Both have a number of years experience with Dallas County in Juvenile and Adult probation./ May 16, 2011  http://www.dallascounty.org......; Since the inception of the program in August 2009 they have had 450 clients, with only 10 that have failed. She believes this success is due to the approach. It is a specific short-term sentence, which is very intensive. There is contact with the client daily. Out of the 450 clients, only 3 have committed new offenses while under supervision. This piece of evidence shows how the Dallas system of alternative sentencing is so effective that 98% of those offenders who went through the program did not go back to crime. It is because the Dallas system works so much better than the current system of prison that it is a good idea fro ensuring compliance. This would bring about significant advantages as seen in, Our Fifth Observation: Advantages Advantage 1: Cost Effectiveness Drug treatment reduces recidivism Denise C. Barrett/ National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel, Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Delaware, with assistance from members of the National Federal Defender Sentencing Resource Counsel Project, May 2009  http://www.fd.org...... Drug abuse treatment is cost effective in reducing drug use and bringing about associated healthcare, crime, and incarceration cost savings" because every dollar spent toward effective treatment programs yields a $4 to $7 dollar return in reduced drug related crime, criminal costs and theft) Vocational Training Works Roger Przybylsk/ RKC Group provides applied research, training and technical assistance services to public, private and nonprofit organizations with a focus on public policy and justice system issues./ February, 2008 http://dcj.state.co.us...... What does the scientific evidence tell us about the effectiveness of educational and vocational training programs? Overall, the weight of the evidence indicates that they work. Highly rigorous studies of educational and vocational programs have found lower recidivism rates for program participants and positive returns on investment. The preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that corrections-based education programs are effective in reducing recidivism. By using a method statistically proven to be better at combating crime and one that is 7 TIMES CHEAPER, we will be protecting the public at a lower cost, which is the essence of being cost effective. It is because this plan is a good idea, that I ask you vote pro. If you are considering taking the CON position, and you have any questions, go ahead and post them in the comments section. I will answer them there.