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

I affirm. I'm going to take this speech to respond to my opponent's refutations to my own points. Since my opponent has made no contentions of his own thus far, you, judge, can assume that I am winning today's debate if I am able to pull my contentions throughout the round. Let's start with the technics. It is not my burden as the Affirmative to state which people will be given rehabilitation and to what magnitude. All I must prove (see the Affirmative burden in Round 1 of this debate) is that the government, which is arguably the implied agent of the resolution, should prioritize rehabilitation OVER retribution. In his/her speech, my opponent asks me whether or not murderers and terorrists deserve to be rehabilitated. I argue that yes, criminals should be rehabilitated regardless of what they have done because it makes society a better place. Howeer, I do not have to argue against retribution altogether. My opponent must remember that his/her burden is to show that retribution should be prioritized over rehabilitation; it's not necessarily one or the other.Judge, my opponent attempts to threaten the validity of my evidence. He/she says that you can assume Rotman to be an Internet blogger. Edgardo Rotman is an author for The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. If you would like a sample of what he has written, you may see this link http://www.jstor.org...;. However, it is not my burden to provide links for every single one of my cards, especially when the Con side of this debate has still not fulfilled any burden of proof whatsoever himself/herself.Judge, my opponent spends a lot of time criticizing the evidence in my first contention. This is really the only offense coming out of the entire speech: criticism of sources. Let me state that all of the studies, statistics, and experiments that I referenced in Contention 1 of my constructive speech are from 1997 or later. Unless my opponent can somehow prove that 16 years of lapsed time invalidates every single one of them, all of those statistics further stand. He/she tries to say that these statistics are from a different country. My responses to this is that just because we are talking about the criminal justice system in the United States does not mean that all of the studies I reference in my constructive speech must be based in the U.S. If we can see statistics that show that rehabilitation has less of a detrimental effect on society, then my opponent gives no reasons for why those same policies should not be implemented and extrapolated in the United States.When my opponent tries to respond to Subpoint B of my first contention, the ONLY offense that he/she has whatsoever is that since 1/3 of children with a parent in prison drop out of school, 2/3 of children do not drop out. I have many responses to this refutation, each one pointing out a hole in my opponent's argument:1. The card says "more than 1/3", not just "1/3". Thus, anywhere between 33.3333% and 99.9999% of children whose parents are in jail drop out of school. Think about the impacts of this, judge. Children deserve a good education regardless of almost anything. The behavior of their parents should not affect the opportunities that the children themselves have. Thus, if we can see that, for every three children whose parents are in jail, more than ONE of them drop out, the social contract is seriously threatened.2. My opponent tries to pull through an interesting argument that says that since 2/3 is bigger than 1/3, the current punishment policies uphold utilitarianism. This response is really only a premise of common sense: if you have fewer parents going to jail (serving retributive justice), fewer children will drop out of school! My opponent has no offense on this point whatsoever; let it flow through the rest of the round.When my opponent refutes subpoint C of my first contention, he/she says that since only 40% of adults believe that the main purpose of punishment is rehabilitation, that automatically means that the other 60% believe in retribution. This blatantly untrue, and my opponent has no oevidence to support it. The other 60% could be a MULTITUDE of different things; I'll even give a few examples to make this debate easier for you: incapacitation, deterrence, community service, national sovereignty, etc. My opponent has no offense going onto my statistics, just weary speculation that can't be taken seriously for today's round.He/she also attacks my 80-90% statistics. It doesn't matter what kinds of prisoners these people who were surveyed were referring to. The fact of the matter is that (or the purpose of the subpoint, rather) is to show that the VAST MAJORITY of people in general prefer rehabilitative methods to retributive methods of justice! It doesn't mean that we can't have both; it just means that if you're better trying to uphold the social contract, rehabilitation is the way to go.Subpoint A of my 2nd contention is sort of a constitutional argument, which arguably ties in pretty well with my framework of the social contract. My opponent says that "retribution can take place without eliminating [offenders'] basic rights". How so? If they are deprived of what the Constitution grants them as citizens and as human beings, tell me and the judge exactly how their basic rights might not be eliminated with the retributive system of justice.From reading the refutation, it looks like my opponent doesn't understand Subpoint B of my 2nd contention. The fact of the matter is that [and this is one of the most important voting issues in the round] **the state should recognize that it plays a role in causing crime**. This means that since not every citizen is afforded the same privileges and opportunities in society, there should be rehabilitative methods of punishment to even the playing ground and provide justice to people who have been given less. I urge my opponent to read Contention 2 Subpoint B again, because so far there is very little valid offense to the point, if any.What my opponent essentially says in response to Subpoint A of my 3rd contention is that minorities are inherently worse than white people. He/she tries to say that minorities are twice as deserving of punishment (60% of the prison population but 30% of the national population, 60/30 = 2) as whites. Please, don't let my opponent get away with that refutation today because it makes no sense in the spirit of today's round.My opponent tries to respond to subpoint B of my 3rd contention by saying that saving money (with rehabilitation) won't necessarily allow for more effective programs. I urge you, judge to look at all of the proven effectiveness of rehabilitation that I have in my case. They're healthier, their rights are better protected, they're less likely to be repeat offenders...the list goes on. So if we can spend LESS MONEY on MORE EFFECTIVE programs, and you, judge, believe that that is important, then please let Contention 3 Subpoint B flow through today's round.Lastly, my opponent's refutation to subpoint C of C3 is that criminals may have certain diseases before entering jail. I refer you to my evidence that says that ex-inmates are 2x as likely to report infections and AIDS than anyone else in society. What this shows, judge, is that cramping up a bunch of prisoners in poorly maintained prison cells is not the way to uphold the social contract. With rehabilitative procedures, we can protect the well-being of offenders by making sure that they aren't locked up in dirty, sweaty, uncomfortable jail cells. There are better ways to reform the offender and the victim and restore society.Because my opponent presents very little offense so far in the debate and has not refuted my value, value criterion, definitions, or burdens, let absolutely everything from my constructive speech flow through for today's round.Thus, I affirm.