Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Hello First I would like to attack my opponent's case then move on to my case in the next round. My opponent did not clarify if rehabilitation will be determined for all criminals. There was no statement on differentiating levels of criminality and how rehabilitation will be applied to those levels. Therefore from his case, it is assumed that criminals that were murderers and terrorists deserve to be rehabilitated. You did not supply any source of credibility for your evidences involving specific individuals. Therefore, we can assume individuals like Rotman(in Contention 2 sub point A) as an internet blogger who just graduated from high school. Now moving on to specific sub points in the three contentions. Contention 1- For all of the statistics in Contention 1, I would like to know which report the statistics were based on. This could have been a report during a different time period, where the statistics may have been different from today. Or, these statistics could have been based on a different country and not the United States. If so, it would contradict your value criterion on The Social Contract of the United States. Contention 1 Subpoint B: First, the statistic shows 1/3 of the children drop out. That means 2/3 do not drop out of school, which upholds utilitarianism, the better for majority of the population. Utilitarianism is closely linked to the social contract, since the government does the best for majority of the people. Also, there was no specific fact of what their parents were guilty of. If they were guilty of abuse, this may actually help the child live a better life, upholding the social contract in terms of punishment. Therefore, your evidence contradicts your value criterion Contention 1 Subpoint C: 40% of adults believe that the main purpose of prison is rehabilitation from your statistics. Therefore 60%, the majority of the population, believe retribution is the main purpose. Your statistics show that around 80-90% of the people support providing prisoners with some sort of alternative to retribution. Can you tell me what types of prisoners they were referring to? If all, does that include terrorists like James Holmes, who killled and injured many civilians? Now moving on to Contention 2 Subpoint A: Offenders should be punished for their assault on society, but not in a way that is determined to their basic rights. Retribution can take place without eliminating their basic rights. Therefore, your statement cannot be concluded only to rehabilitation Subpoint B: Your evidence only serves purpose to a small amount of unfortunate criminals in the prison system. Rehabilitation may serve justice to these criminals but how so for criminals that have done much worse? Finally, moving on to Contention 3. Subpoint A:Where does it say that 60% of inmates that are of minorities are not deserved of their crime. You do not have any evidence on showing false punishment to these certain individuals. Your subpoint cannot be proven true, therefore retribution is not racially discriminatory Subpoint B: Many criminals, like James Holmes, are educated, but still have committed a crime. You may save money by educating criminals, but there is no guarantee that it will change the citizen. Then you may have to use other programs, which ultimately may lead up to a cost similar to incarceration. Subpoint C: Inmates could have already had those certain diseases before punishing. HIV is a sexual disease, therefore stress, if any, from retribution should have a very little effect on it. Also, these diseases are mostly an effect of living conditions in prison. You did not state explicitly how rehabilitation will affect the living conditions. Therefore, rehabilitation may or may not affect living conditions in jail.