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

1. The Vagueness of Yama’s PlanYama proposes two things: that more should be executed and that executions should be cheaper. This is critically flawed because he proposes no way to make the execution process cheaper. Thus, even if it would work, it would cost way too much money to execute to such an extent. Also, Yama doesn’t propose anything about criminals he does not want to execute. Since he limited how many crimes he was talking about, out of the many that can be committed, he has not fulfilled his end of the burden of proof, because Yama's burden requires him to show that the majority or all of crimes committed must be dealt with through retribution, and the majority of crimes are not in his given example. His plan is not only vague, but only applies to a section of the prison population.2. The China ArgumentHere, Yama establishes that China has a low recidivism rate. He did not establish, however, the causation of it, and merely claimed that they were “more strict”. I established a causation of China’s low recidivism rate: rehabilitation. Because of Yama’s lack of evidence that directly links harsher punishment to lower recidivism rates in China, this point of his falls flat: and effectively helps my case, as I established a causation for the lower recidivism.3. Yama’s Moral ArgumentHe does not explain why his argument for the death penalty is moral, and then in defense, he calls out two contradicting philosophers. His Gandhi quote ironically helps my side, as killing a murderer would be an “eye for an eye”. And, he said that they are both right: which I view as a concession of sorts: as what Gandhi was advocating for was not exacting revenge (retribution) for a crime. This quote of Gandhi does not help Yama’s case. And then, he quotes Machiavelli’s The Prince: a quote that is about how a ruler should hope to be viewed by his people. He does not explain why this advocates directly for the death penalty, nor why the moral pushed by Machiavelli should be accepted.4. Yama’s sourcingYama’s rebuttal for my RSVP argument was a Google search, which he said showed that there was no evidence that rehabilitative treatment for sexual offenders works: because he said there was no websites showing a lower recidivism rate between those in rehabilitative programs and those who are not. However, he cites a website that said that sexual offenders that did go into treatment had a 37% lower recidivism rate (which was also ironically the third result I got when I clicked on his Google search), which was in his second source in his round 3 argument. Even if he did not see evidence - which was clearly in his own source, a Google search does not invalidate the argument. Besides, he actually found evidence for my side, as was also the case in the China argument.5. Dropped PointsYama did not address my cost argument in his rebuttals. This was a crucial criticism on his plan to increase the number of executions, and he did not speak of it.6. ConclusionReally, this debate boils down to a simple thing - I provided evidence of rehabilitive programs working and Yama did not. I provided causation between RSVP and China having lower recidivism, and he provided a Google search and a statement saying the reason China has a lower recidivism rate is that they give harsher punishment - without any evidence to back him up. ---In closing, I thank Yama for the debate, and I remind him to waive the final round, as per the round 1 rules.