Resolved: In the United States, minor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

This is definitely one of the better rounds if not the best round on this website that I have been in (especially since it was in the form of LD). It has truly been an honor debating at this caliber and I can't wait to see what the voters think. With that, I will begin with hitting my opponents arguments from last round and will then state why I think that I win this round, I. The values of Societal Welfare and Justice. My opponent keeps trying to prove which value is higher. But, what you have to see is that he fails to prove how he gets them better than me. The only thing that makes values valuable is if you achieve them and in this round, I achieve BOTH values. Through the Criterion of Appropriate Punishment, I get the values as I give the greatest chance to protect the society. My opponent HAS agreed with me that I have the greatest chance to rehab. .. by this admission alone I win because to support any sort of Justice and to support any sort of societal welfare, we must make the greatest chance to rehab the people that need it. .. the criminals. Therefore, I achieve societal welfare (which does happen to be the better value as it gets justice AND MORE), and I get justice as people are "due" their better life which scopes the criminals and the average citizen. II. Appropriate Punishment is gained on the Pro side. Again, by him admitting that I have the better chance to rehab the criminals, you will see that the appropriate punishment is on the Pro side. This is because we are not replacing jail time for MAJOR crimes but MINOR crimes (as the resolution specifies when it says minor jail time). .. Simply put, the criterion is meant to show who achieves the values better, and since I give the more appropriate punishment, I achieve the values all the more. -->(specifically against some of his explanation). .. 2 things, 1. .. I do read your postings and to prove it, here is me responding to specific explanation. .. 2. The whole point in this round is to make significant rehabilitation part of the jurisdiction of the state. He argues that it is not presently in the jurisdiction of the state, even though this may be true (I'm actually not sure if it is or not), it does NOT mean you should vote Con, instead, you should vote Pro on the fact that rehab SHOULD be a part of the Jurisdiction as it DOES give the greatest chance for rehab and it DOES achieve both values within this round. I do not contend remove the jail time as a punishment, but simply that a day or two in jail (minor jail time) should be replaced with something that will actually do some good, significant rehabilitation. ------------- -->This round is not about which punishment is more just or not. It simply is about who's form of punishment is the "appropriate punishment" and who's form of punishment achieves the values of societal welfare and justice. He argues that his is more just, but he never defines what just is. I see just as doing the right thing, but the right thing in this round is to try to get the most possible value in society (justice and welfare). And on a side note, just and justice ARE NOT the same thing. .. look up the definitions, just is usually what is right or what is morally right. Justice is rendering each their due. Therefore, you could consider giving someone the death penalty as rendering them their due but I don't see that as morally right therefore not making it just. (if you think I am picky about this, DON'T bring up justification (aka justified :P)) -------------- III. Forced rehab is GOOD for societal welfare. I honestly don't see ANYWHERE within this debate that suggests that forced rehab is bad. AND if it is bad, how? What are the negative effects. Criminals are the people that need this rehab and if you vote pro, you allow that to happen. Certainly you can not expect these criminals to check them self into rehab facilities and certainly you can't expect it to be 100% effective, HOWEVER, it WILL be more effective than minor jail time. This is proven with the efforts shown by Criminon. 1. (Significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab" Sure, I'll grant that. Significant crime reduction efforts gives the greatest chance for crime reduction too)--> -This is where my opponent makes his greatest flaw. .. I agree with everything that was said in this argument. What my opponent fails to do, is make the connection between crime reduction efforts and minor jail time. .. The TRUE "significant crime reduction efforts", IS significant rehabilitation efforts. 2. (With all things being equal, of course, less crimes almost certainly leads to greater societal welfare)--> -ABSOLUTELY, I applaud your genius statement, HOWEVER, the less crimes is ONLY gained on the Pro side as you ADMIT that significant rehab leads to a greater chance for rehab, and if a criminal is rehabilitated, that means he won't commit any more crimes, therefore, by your own admission, Pro has fewer crimes which can ONLY mean that significant rehabilitation ought to replace minor jail time. (Of course . .. all this assumes that forced rehabilitation has no other consequences)---> Well, if there are any "other consequences", what are they. Since none have been shown in this debate, I can only see that there aren't any, and I am fairly sure that rehab efforts won't increase the crime rate (as the repeat offenders percent is way to high to even have a chance for that). Which is another thing that really went overlooked in this debate is the repeat percentage, the whole reason it is so high is because a night in jail simply is not enough. .. or in other words, minor jail time NEEDS to be replaced. Off the whole criminon/scientology argument. .. ---> My point in the Criminon example was not to show WHAT I wanted the significant rehabilitation efforts to be, but simply, HOW I wanted them done, and by how, I mean with passion, with dedication as to actually make this criminal rehab more than just a dream, but moreover, a reality. Criminon efforts are what shows true dedication to make life better and although they may not be the immediate people who are in charge of this operation (that by the way only OUGHT TO BE DONE) but they do show the capabilities of rehabilitation efforts. Off of (The simple fact of the matter is, just because a method is good at stopping crime does not necessarily make it good for societal welfare. In fact, very often methods good for reducing crime also happen to be bad, sometimes very bad for societal welfare)--> -Here my friends, is a perfect example of a contradiction. He says that rehab is the best chance for rehab. .. then he says it may not be the best for society. Well sure, your examples for effective not good for society (Torture. Spying. Wiretapping. Police State) are true, but I do not advocate that these rehab sessions will be run while the criminals is being electrocuted or drowned. Simply put, rehab IS good for societal good because it gives the greatest chance for rehab and a good society. IV. --> Again, my opponent brings up the money. But again, the resolution specifies that we OUGHT TO, not that we will. Everyone ought to donate, but that doesn't mean that everyone will or can. Also, you will see that if we don't spend so much money on this minor jail time, then we will have more money for this rehab. Therefore, his argument holds no weight inside of this debate as if we were to have significant rehab, more welfare will be created irregardless of how the money could be spent otherwise (which he brought up in his explanation) In the end of this debate, I can only see a Pro vote because both values are upheld with the criterion of appropriate punishment. Significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab (by my opponents admission) therefore more people get what they are "due. " be it welfare or rehab. Thanks