In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Even though ‘Sephiroth > Batman' it will still be a great round :D I negate, Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation. Resolutional Analysis: The resolution specifies ought to REPLACE. This means that there must be ‘moral obligation' to eliminate jail time and switch it to strictly rehab. Therefore, if I prove that jail time is better than rehabilitation or if I prove that BOTH jail time and rehab is better than rehab, then you must vote con. CONTENTION ONE: Value- Societal Welfare ---I agree that within this debate, societal welfare is the ultimate goal, however, I must say that eliminating jail time AND replacing it only with rehabilitation will not achieve this. Therefore, I offer my proposition: We should use BOTH jail time AND rehabilitation. This way, rather than finding what system is better for most people, we could use both systems and target integration of more people, because not everyone learns from just being put in a cell, and not every one learns from cheesy rehab sessions with some guy. Some can learn from just one, but several would learn best with both systems. CONTENTION TWO: Criterion: Propriety A. Definition ---Defined from . http://dictionary.reference.com... as appropriateness to the purpose or circumstances ===================================== ---For weight to my criterion, I offer the following: -From: . http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca... ---"The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offence; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. ===================================== B. Replacement of one of the ‘reasons for punishments' fails societal welfare. ---Yes, having simply rehabilitation would meet the weight of the definition however, it would STILL decrease societal welfare. I therefore urge my opponent to show how having ONLY rehab would help societal welfare. CONTENTION 3: Jail time is necessary for ‘punishment'. ---Imagine if every time you stole, all you had to do is talk to some guy about it and pay reparations. There would be no significant factor to get it into these criminals' heads as THIS IS BAD. If nothing more than to punish for simple restitution, but furthermore, to try to create a deterrent to not do it again. By us simply letting these people off the hook with simple discussion of a counselor, they get no reason to not commit the same criminal act. Perhaps the first time they commit a misdemeanor, they get rehab, whereas the second time, they get jail time. Either way, relying on system or the other just shows that these flaws will fall through if we put too many eggs in one basket. Instead, we should spread out the burden to reduce recidivism in BOTH rehab and jail time. CONTENTION 4: There is not one perfect system for everybody. ---Today we need to open our options to make our system negotiable and flexible. By doing this, we recognize the variance upon the offenders and shine light on a new era where our recidivism rate is not quite as high. This is what we ought to do… We ought NOT be concerned with replacement of one system for the other, rather, we ought to be concerned with putting as much power into a system that can target all criminals to try to be reintegrated into society. CONTENTION 5: More jobs. ---Not only will more rehab mean more counselors, but on top of this, we STILL get to keep jobs that run the jail facilities. Not to mention the places that build the jails. Overall, by using both systems, we get counselor jobs, security jobs, and construction jobs. ONTO MY OPPONENTS CASE: ---She has yet to show how replacement of jail time for rehabilitation will fulfill any sort of obligation, let alone a moral one. ---She agrees with my framework. ---I disagree, you don't have to show that rehab would be better than jail time, rather, you have to show that we have a moral obligation to exchange the current jail time with rehab. ---I agree that this is crucial, but fail to see how exchanging one system for the other accomplishes this. Cross apply my interpretation of the definition of propriety. Now, we ought not strive to fulfill one of those criteria for ‘appropriate punishment', rather, we should include what is utmost important for society. By including most, if not all of those criteria, we can directly target more offenders and give the best chance for recidivism to be decreased… and overall, for society to be benefited. ---Great! This just shows that rehab will be a good addition to the current system. Furthermore, if she is going to use cost/benefit analysis, she should at least include some costs to jail time (particularly ones that fail the moral obligation). Finally, I offer benefits to jail time: 1) Restitution 2) Deterrence 3) Set's an example 4) (in some cases) Reparations 5) Separation of dangerous people and society (a direct correlation to the value. Not to mention that many misdemeanors are aggressive. Take for example domestic violence. Would it be prudent to simply sentence that man to some rehab sessions and allow him back into the home immediately? We need to keep the appropriate punishment that jail time is in order to target situations like this). ---1. This only applies to some, not all. The recidivism rate is not 100% for a good reason. ---2. Rehab would be the icing on the cake. But since my opponent insists that we take away the cake, then societal welfare will fall, because no society can last without its cake. ---Which is why rehab would be great icing! And once again, this only applies to some, not all. ---Clarification please. Often times taking away this right to live (for a little while at least) gets it through to the criminals head. Again, the recidivism rate isn't 100%, so at least we are doing something right as of right now. ---I don't have to show that it is more effective, simply that it ought not be 'replaced'. Furthermore, I do show how it has enough effectiveness that it should stick around at the end of this debate anyway. ---Cross-apply the domestic violence example. Rehab doesn't fit everyone, nor does jail time. Sometimes we need one or the other. .. or even both. In the end I leave you with this. .. DON'T PUT ALL OF YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET! Thank you for the challenge and good luck with your next speech and the rest of this tournament!