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

RE: Observation: Note that CON accepts my definition of minor jail time. Re: I. Recidivism. 1) It's not necessarily recidivism that is the concern, but rather the conclusion it leads us to. And as I highlighted as being the point of my argument, the incentive to abide by the law which is supposed to be provided by prisons/jails is vastly infinitesimal. 2) My opponent says that I'm assuming that recidivism rates are high because minor jail time is imposed upon criminals rather than rehabilitation. Stop right there. The point of the recidivism argument is to show that (contrary to what my opponent is now advocating), the status quo (the prison system) is flaccid and ineffective for the most part (hence a problem). This, herr judges, is the first astronomical problem with my opponent's case. He goes about insisting that rehabilitation is unnecessary as the status quo is working, yet here, he quite clearly concedes that status quo isn't doing its job. So tell me, what sense does it make to advocate that the system is serving as a deterrent for repeat offenses? No sense at all. 3) On the matter of recidivism rates decreasing through SIGNIFICANT rehabilitation, the resolution insures that the rehabilitation would be significant. According to the Merriam Webster's dictionary, significant is defined as the following:http://www.merriam-webster.com... Given that the meaning of significant is "effective", we are obligated to assume that this rehabilitation would be effective. Thus, this debate doesn't concern whether or not the rehabilitation would work in lowering recidivism rates (as that is guaranteed by the resolution). Rather, we're debating over whether or not it's really outweighs the benefits of the status quo (not to suggest that there isn't another way of being CON). And when you examine CON's argument, it is rather apparent that maintaining the status quo at least for minor jail time simply isn't worth the cost (ineffective system, thus not only is the purpose not really carried out, but it is a waste of money for the government). 4) As for his third paragraph, recidivism rates being the only concern is clearly a straw man concocted by CON as I merely point out recidivism as being evidence of there being a need for concern which is "US prisons don't provide the proper incentive for it's prisoners not to respect and uphold the law." Furthermore, it is rather apparent that I use human rights as part of my reason for why this system is necessary. Re: II. Cost. 1) How much would it entail? Well lets look at it this way with some rebuttal evidence: http://www.cbsnews.com... . It cost $23,000 dollars PER YEAR to keep one criminal in jail on average. This would suggest that somewhere around $48,000,000,000 dollars of the tax payers money goes into jailing every year. My plan is by far superior. First, the criminals will have part of the burden of paying off the price of the rehabilitation. Thus, taxes will be lowered (and who doesn't like lower taxes???). Second, even if food/shelter rates are the same as prison rates, we must keep in mind that contrary to minor jail time (which my opponent concedes to being considered as 10 years), rehabilitation would take a significantly less amount of time. Even if we are to say that the significant rehabilitation would average out to six months per criminal (which I won't, since it is unlikely that criminals with 30 day crimes would need this much time to rehabilitate), this would still significantly decrease the cost of keeping someone in prison for 2-10 years ($48,000 - $240,000 per criminal), and it would be the criminals who would legally be obligated to pay at least most of the fee it takes to rehabilitate them. Third, cost will be lowered further when we take into account how the recidivism rate would lower drastically. 2) Even if we are to suggest that the cost of education, psychiatric help and assistance would significantly increase the price for each criminal, we cannot ignore the fact that the time difference for said rehab would make the key difference in terms of cost. As suggested above, the time for REHAB doesn't even come close to the max amount of time for minor jail retribution. RE: III. Humanitarian Concerns: 1) CON states that the rough environment is a deterrent for crime, but you can simply cross apply my argument concerning how the high recidivism rate is to be interpreted. Thus, this simply leaves us with people getting the crap beaten out of them or raped on a regular basis for a reason which is entirely false, given the statistical information. Furthermore, I have more rebuttal evidence to provide. Observe: http://www.law.cornell.edu... . Pay special attention to these points (especially point 13) as it is well noted that next to nothing i being done to combat the current disease transferring problem as well as the issue of rape and prison homicides. Furthermore, we must note that brutalized inmates are noted as being more likely to commit crime, thus fully annihilating CON's incentive argument. RE: IV. Efficiency: The so-called benefits are exactly the source of the problem. The reason our prison system seems so efficient is because our society (or government rather) simply doesn't care for convicted felons (for the most part). This falls back to the evidence I had submitted in the humanitarian point above. So many problems like rape, homicide, disease transferal,and brutalization occur in prisons quite frequently, yet hardly anything is done to prevent it. Furthermore, these criminal most often don't change their ways, commit more crimes, and get re-convicted. In short, the efficiency CON talks about is the same kind of efficiency there is in simply dumping your trash into a nearby lake or someone else's yard. Sure, there comes big consequences to your actions, but at least shows efficiency in you having to put as little effort into the task as possible. It's pretty apparent that our current system is in a mess, so there's nothing to brag about when it comes to efficiency. Sure, the matter of efficiency and criminal priority is going to raise a few levels when it concerns my plan, but this shall serve as an incentive for the US to improve when it comes to priorities such as these. As for determining what kind of rehab criminals would get, that can be determined during court proceedings. Furthermore, keeping track of the criminals is not really a concern for current rehab programs, so there shouldn't be any doubt that it would be problematic for a significant one. RE. V. Punishment: I've already shut down CON's arguments on the matter of deterrents, so now I'll just refute what little else there is of this contention. Even if the punishment serves as a peace of mind for victims, it doesn't change the fact that once these criminals get back out of jail, statistically speaking, they are likely going to commit another crime. Who is to say these criminals won't decide to go after the families which CON brings up? Wouldn't these families have a greater peace of mind if they were to know that their assailants would return to the community as a reformed citizen? As for the punishment aspect which has been around for a millennium, this is obviously an appeal to tradition. Furthermore, simply holding on to the past is no way to PROGRESS forwards. Conclusion: Herr Judges, it is apparent that the US is simply shelling out billions of dollars a year as well as sacrificing the lives of many for a system that is outdated, isn't working, and is detrimental to society. I believe I've shown that my solution is the logical upgrade and now await CON's second rebuttal.