Resolved: Rehabilitation Should Be Valued Above Retribution

I broadly agree that criminals are made, not born. That's a great argument for preventative justice programs, which we both support. It is only at the implications that we differ. My rebuttal will be integrated because I see this debate as being primarily contested along very different lines.Retributive justice is about treating criminals fairly - greater offences require greater punishment. The emphasis is on the offence actually committed, while rehab emphasizes the possible value that the criminal could bring to society if they were good.FairnessConsider a parking offence, generally considered quite minor. Most western societies follow the retributive model of issuing a ticket and maybe a small fine to pay for the inconvenience to society of using that space. That's fair because it's transactional - if you take away something from somebody and can't give it back, you can always give them something else instead. The victims (presumably handicapped people or road users who might have been endangered) are indirectly recompensed for their loss via government support funded in part by fines like these. Attempting to reform such offenders, however, perhaps by sending them a strongly worded letter to read the road code, is useless because a) it's incredibly patronising, b) it was probably an honest mistake anyway, and c) the minor nature of the crime gives them no incentive to actually bother doing so. The inherent unfairness of the rehabilatory model is that the victims always get nothing for their loss. At best, even if it works completely, all it does is give a boost to the offenders.Now consider a major offence of some sort (murder, raping kids, getting the BOP wrong in debates etc). These things clearly deserve a much higher standard of punishment (esp. for those who get the BOP wrong in debates) because they incur a much greater burden on society. After all, what value can be placed on a human life, or human dignity, or the importance of BOP not getting confused in this sacred institution? A retributive model ensures that these criminals are dealt with fairly and appropriately. Of course, if there are mitigating factors, then these are taken into consideration. Perhaps environmental factors can be considered mitigating in most circumstances. But the harm that the criminal directly caused must be justly dealt to according to their part in it. Free will or not, intent or no intent, that's all irrelevant - killing somebody is still a really bad thing. Retributive justice is about seeking fair retribution for crimes, not a "lust for revenge" as pro termed it.By contrast, consider the rehabilatory model, which would advocate solutions like perhaps "A Clockwork Orange" style centers for murder, or debate education programs for repeat BOP offenders. It's useless because a) if indeed their environment has conditioned them as pro supports, then they have every incentive to not change, and b) if they are released back into the environment, then after rehab they'll go back to the same behaviours. That's why you need preventative justice to change the environment and retributive justice to make sure fair outcomes come out of horrific acts people do despite their improved environments. Rehab does absolutely nothing to fix anything. Besides, the damage is already done. Even if the criminals are "reformed", that won't undo the harm they have already created.Proof rehab doesn't work? Amy Winehouse. Or for that matter, insert any high profile person who has gone to rehab here.If there is something that DOES turn criminals around - and better yet, prevents them from doing crime in the first place - it's the fact that they'll have to pay a fair price for the wrongs they commit. Rehabilitation denies this, retribution affirms it. Who should be helped here? Victims, or offenders? I say both.ResponsibilityThis is my opponent's only argument. It's not an argument for rehabilitation but against retribution, a subtle but important distinction. Everything's he's said is not constructive - pro's never justified "why rehab" to you - but pre-emptive rebuttal ie "why not retribution". Moreover, pro confuses accountability and responsibility. Rehab still holds criminals accountable (that's why they need to be rehabilitated) but not responsible. I like to think of it as "we know you killed that guy but we don't really care about him, just so long as you stop killing in future".My contention is that by valuing rehabilitation, you effectively deny any kind of personal moral culpability. This in and of itself creates an environment where nobody feels the need to take responsibility for their own actions, because the rehabilitory "it's not my fault" mantra vindicates everything. Rapists going to court saying "blame society for my actions!" etc is really just a way to dissolve responsibility until it does not exist outside of an abstract philosophical or moral conception with no connection to real-world justice.The harm of a lack of individual responsibility is simply that individuals act irresponsibly. Translation: more crime, more evil, more people messing up BOP in debates, your kids are likely to get raped etc. And why not? "Being a pedophile is NORMAL for me!" If an individual is never responsible for their actions, these cannot be morally unjustified. Aside from the simple fact that nobody wants to live in such a society - and by that I mean NOBODY - it's also not conductive to the survival of that society to be irresponsible. Responsibility is good because without responsibility, there is no justice (responsibility being just).Assigning blame for crime establishes clearly who is responsible and what any given person needs to avoid to avoid being blamed. All these harms would accrue even if rehab actually works (besides which it still wouldn't be fair because the attacker's future life is given value while the victim's past life is given none).We don't know the futureFor sure, there's no scientific reason why a just society should have any greater moral value, nor any philosophical reason to justify morality at all. But isn't that to deny moral justice? This debate is not about whether we should have criminals. We agree that we should. This debate is about whether we should punish them for their crimes, or equip them for what we imagine their future might be.There is a gamble inherent in rehab - that the rehab will actually turn out for the better for the person recieving it even if it is successful. Perhaps indoctrinating business executives to not do any fraud will have some unforseen negative consequence on society - just as an example (and I'm not saying this would necessarily be THE consequence that occurs) perhaps consumers will find it easier to take advantage of them. Looking to the past to remedy wrongs is logical for three reasons - first, if it were not for the past the wrongs would never have happened, second, the wrongs happened in the past, and third, the past can actually be known with a much greater degree of certainty than the future. It logically follows that looking to the future is illogical. Retributive justice is about righting past wrongs, rehab is about creating some future judge-defined "utopia" where everyone is "good". But does a judge really know what rehab might do to a person - or harder still, how society itself might change during the time that person is in rehab. After all, the judge barely knows the offender outside of the confines of their case. Bad guys can still rehabilitate when faced with retribution. How would American society be today if prison had not reformed Malcolm X? At the very least that's a controversial question. No such questions exist around rehab because rehab hasn't had a big success story yet.The point is that it's not the role of all justice save preventative justice to be forward looking, but backward looking - not assume crime will happen, but work off hard facts and clear evidence.The resolution is negated.