Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

Since Pro did not respond, I will continue. Pro stated that recidivism rates of the status quo were 7% (42% vs. 49%) higher than under his plan [1]. However, this small percentage could easily be influenced by the data used in this study from over ten years ago. This study only used 68% of American data, so it is quite feasible to believe that the numbers from other countries can inflate the recidivism rates. After all, Pro cited a different source stating 41% recidivism rate [2], and Con has already stated the real recidivism rate is 25% [3]. Why are these numbers so much lower than this study? It would appear that other countries’ data bring up the rate. This source and all conclusions drawn from it must be ignored. Investigating Pro’s main source further, the one that states a 41% rate, we have been misled. First, the source states specifically that 16% of these inmates will be back in federal prisons, while 41% will be “rearrested or had their paroles revoked”. As stated before, being rearrested is not a crime, as it can include: a false arrest, a parole/probation violation (like failing a drug test or missing a meeting), a new crime, or even a material witness order (these are considered arrests and constitute about 4% of arrests [5], which could easily encompass drug offenders being forced to testify against drug lords or the mafia). But when looking at recidivism, we should be worried about new crimes, not parole/probation violations. Going back to prison because you screwed up (or going in the first place) is not an issue because it is still part of the sentence for the old crime. The prevention of new crimes are what will preserve order in society, not the re-arrest of someone who blew his chance at early release/lesser penalty. Looking into the study that supplied Pro’s 41% rate stat, the number of new crimes from released federal prisoners within three years of release that land them back in federal prison is 4.8% [4]. Those on parole or supervised release found themselves back in prison at a rate of 15.5% simply because they violated a term of parole, often a drug test. This study, which is from Pro, validates my study’s claim of a total 25% recidivism rate. Pro has defended the Dallas plan by citing its success of its first batch, stating part of the success is because offenders have to pay. This may be true, but Dallas’ plan also failed at its first attempt of expansion into higher-risk offenders. The first batch, I am sure would have been eligible for the safety-valve in the federal system (i.e. status quo). The expansion offenders (which also were likely to meet the safety-valve) was met with similar recidivism rates for the rest of the state (expansion 18.8% failure, 2010 state parole revocation rate 14.7%), which shows no improvement [6]. Actually, it is worse. As far as the “amazing success” of the incredibly small sample of 450 goes; it does not prove anything. There is no information on recidivism rates among the safety-valve offenders. Logic would dictate that, if anyone would succeed in any program, it is those that would be new (first offenders) and tolerant (non-violent, non-leader) of a program to keep them out of prison. So, Pro says his plan yields 42% recidivism (I have to use this stat because no other has been given), and the status quo has a 25% rate. The status quo works. As far as Dallas’ program that Pro wants to use as the model, it does nothing to fix recidivism. If it does nothing to fix recidivism, than it does not lower crime. By Pro’s own words in round 2, CON then proceeded to assert that my study from Dallas is "incomplete and prejudicial". In response to both of these points I say that CON has: missed the point. The point was that the Dallas system of intensive supervision keeps offenders from leaving the program or committing crimes during the program. It does nothing to fix the recidivism rate. If Pro's model is to simply prevent offenders from committing crimes during the program (i.e. their sentence), then how is this different than prison, which offers drug rehab, education, and re-entry services? You must vote Con. http://www.prisonpolicy.org... http://www.justice.gov... http://www.uscourts.gov... http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... http://www.bjs.gov... http://www.lbb.state.tx.us...