In the criminal justice system, more emphasis should be put on retribution than rehabilitation

1. Yama’s China argumentYama proposes that the US adopt a system similar to China. In China, 68 crimes make one eligible for capital punishment [1]. China’s own goal is much less violent than Yama’s proposed system is. They say, on their website [2],“People can be reformed. The great majority of criminals can also be reformed. Turning minuses into pluses and changing criminals into people who are useful to society are in conformity with the great Marxist ideal of liberating all of mankind. Consistent with this understanding, China does not simply punish criminals; instead it emphasizes reform and change for the better. Therefore, even in the case of criminals who have committed serious offenses, China has always adhered to its laws and policies, which call for a minimum number of executions.”Yama proposes we be strict like China, as he states that they put drug traffickers to death, whereas we simply imprison them. But, this (the death penalty) is not their main focus. From Yama’s source [3]:“China firmly believes that people, including most criminals, can be rehabilitated. It is the basic target of China’s policy of correction that criminals should become law-abiding citizens who can lead independent lives.Directed by this thought, China’s criminal punishment policy is focused on corrections rather than straightforward punishment. During the process of correction, the focus is on the implementation of the principles of humanism and education, and great attention is paid to the criminals’ conscious correction through labour, morality, culture, technology and so forth. By these means, criminals can become law-abiding citizens, giving up the intention to commit crime to fulfill their greed. China adopts the measure of combining special State penal organs with civic society organizations. The main task of correction is undertaken by the penal executive organs in prisons. At the same time, other departments and social strata contribute their efforts to support and co-ordinate criminal correction throughout the whole process, which extends to matters such as living arrangements after release and employment of the released prisoners.”It is clear that the China system’s, according to Yama’s sources, main focus is not recidivism. Yama’s proposition says that we should take China’s system because it, according to him, comes down much harder on criminal activity. But, China does not actually use this system to Yama’s proposed extent, according to his sources.“In judicial practice in China, the overwhelming majority of criminals who are punishable by death with a suspension of execution are spared the death penalty.” [3]Also, a problem with implementing the death penalty on a larger scale would be that it would prove to be extremely costly. In a country where cases where capital punishment is eligible can cost up to $1.8 million [4], it would be unreasonable to execute at a higher rate: as it would be too much of a burden on taxpayers.2. Unaddressed pointsYama hardly addresses my argument. He cites the Chinese system, which I have now proved to be not the one that Yama proposes: but rather one that stresses rehabilitation. He does not address my RSVP study, and he simply states that China gets results. For good measure, I will quote the Chinese government’s website again [2].“In the reform of criminals, China operates on the principle that education is very important, attaching great importance to physical labour in addition to legal, moral, cultural and technical education to encourage criminals to stop looking at time in prison as a forced prison term and think more in terms of conscientious reform, to give up the idea of obtaining personal gain through criminal means, to form the habit of respecting other people and society in general, and to obtain the work skills needed for later employment so that they may become law-abiding citizens.”This doesn’t quite go well with Yama’s contention that China gets results due its “far more strict manner of handling criminals”. It actually shows that the Chinese wish to rehabilitate their criminals, rather than simply punish them.3. ConclusionYama states that China is more strict and that is why they have a lower recidivism rate. He does not pull much information from the sources that he used. His own sources: one from the Chinese government’s website, dictate that China has a focus of reforming convicted criminals: not putting them all to death. This is where the argument dies: because China does not kill everyone who is eligible for the death penalty: as I cited from Yama’s source earlier.From reading about China’s system from Yama’s sources, the apparent focus of the system is rehabilitation-first, and then harsher punishments come into play. The death penalty is not exclusive from rehabilitation, and it doesn’t dictate that a system is retributive by nature. I can use a system with the death penalty as long as the system puts more emphasis on rehabilitation than retribution, which is apparently what the Chinese system sets out to do: which is also why Yama’s argument fails. He used a government that specifically states that their system “emphasizes reform and change for the better” [2], cited their reported recidivism rate, said it was retributive, and left it there.So, the problem with Yama’s rebuttal round boils down to a few things. It does not take into account that China puts emphasis on rehabilitation, and it does not directly attack my argument. Rather, it “cites” the “more strict punishment” of the Chinese. This is problematic for Yama because I never saw anything in his argument or his cited sources that would dictate that China puts more emphasis on retribution than rehabilitation in regards to convicted criminals. From his sources, I read a lot that would dictate an emphasis of rehabilitation over retribution: and I put that in my argument.[1] http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg...[2] http://www.china.org.cn...[3] http://www.unafei.or.jp...[4] http://www.urban.org...