In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

NC-AC *Before direct refutation begins this has to be established – We are debating whether or not to REPLACE jail time with significant rehab. – Through out Johnicle's 1NC he advocates the use of both. This isn't practical due to the fact that the resolution in of itself doesn't follow this premise at all. **Rehabilitation doesn't always involve the criminal sitting with a bald fat man talking about his feelings and why he ought not commit the misdemeanor again. Rehabilitation allows for a criminal to often times give back to society, whereas jail time, does not. R.A 1 – Because of the resolution I only agree with the fact that you have to prove to my why jail time ONLY is "better" then significant rehabilitation. – My friend, you have yet to do so. CI – Societal Welfare. 1-"cheesy rehab" – Regardless of how much you feel rehabilitation is cheesy I prove to you that 1) it upholds societal welfare 2) A significant amount of rehab is worthy compared to being locked up in a jail cell for 5-15 days. 2-One could contend [one being me] that by declaring that both jail time as well as rehabilitation should be used is the same as having "two punishments." This logically isn't acceptable because this means our "system" has no restriction. 3-The affirmative fails to uphold the value for reasons as follows 1) Jail time –in correlation with a misdemeanor isn't effective 2) There is a greater redemption factor among those who go to rehab then jail. And finally 3) refer to the fact that jail time doesn't allow for redemption to even happen. [[refer to the ** argument up top please] CII – Propriety. 1-I'm having a problem with your C point "to separate offenders from society, where necessary" – When is necessary? CIII: 1-Through out this whole contention you talk about the use of both. With this I would like to cross apply what I had said earlier, this isn't what the resolution calls for. That we are debating whether or not to REPLACE jail time with significant rehab, not whether or not they should co-exist equally. CVI: 1-"Today we need to open our options to make our system negotiable and flexible." – since when? - -What motives actually target your claim? 2-"..all criminals to try to be reintegrated into society" – Well hey. I agree. However you have yet to show me the success rates of jail allowing this. CVI: 1-we never loose these jobs. – Again refer back to the resolution, where we focus the debate around those who commit misdemeanors. Therefore due to our lovely society, jails will still be blooming with no figures of loss. AC: Def. - Ought: The moral obligation, as stated in case, would be the welfare of society, for one if our society ought not replace jail with rehabilitation we wouldn't be doing what is best for this welfare. Plain and simple. V: -To be honest, I don't really know what you accomplish with your explanation. C: -I'll work off of your benefits with direct refutation -1) Restitution – [this is where my clarification comes into play. Society looks to benefit everyone, however will them being thrown in jail, and not ticketed for the vital reasoning behind their act is what is unacceptable. – That not only do we ‘not care' about one set criminal, but are just satisfied with them ‘serving their due' in a jail cell] 2) Deterrence – [Slim, sitting in a cell for opt amount of days will not prevent a poor man from stealing again.] 3) Set's an example – [That our society isn't doing what's best for our nation? :s] 4) (in some cases) Reparations – [Success rate and likelihood is grader via rehabilitation] 5) Separation of dangerous people and society (a direct correlation to the value. Not to mention that many misdemeanors are aggressive. Take for example domestic violence. Would it be prudent to simply sentence that man to some rehab sessions and allow him back into the home immediately? We need to keep the appropriate punishment that jail time is in order to target situations like this). – [You fail to acknowledge how, when, and if for that matter if jail time actually benefits the actual criminal. You claim to use both rehabilitation and jail, but you don't factor these in. show me.] CI: -"Rehab would be the icing on the cake. But since my opponent insists that we take away the cake, then societal welfare will fall, because no society can last without its cake." i.Frosting is good by itself, especially with sprinkles. – Again just refer back to the fact that we can't correlate the two. We're debating on whether or not to replace… CII -"…only applies to some, not all." – 1) why do we have to go through jail, just to have frosting? - My point is that when we see a flawed system for misdemeanors, we obviously, if given the chance, replace it. 2) The point is that it applies in the first place. Being that the criminal lives in the United States we ought to take care of them EVEN if they have committed a misdemeanor, further more jail doesn't allow for us to find the problem where it lies, rehabilitation does. CIII: [[Clarification provided in Criterion refutation]] CVI: "I don't have to show that it is more effective, simply that it ought not be 'replaced'. Furthermore, I do show how it has enough effectiveness that it should stick around at the end of this debate anyway." -Here lies the problem. – Obviously you say we ought not replace, however you in the end, fail to show me the moral obligation, I provide it, you don't, your effectiveness is refuted by BATMAN. [case arguments] - Therefore Batman> Sephiroth [[By the way, Easter is coming up - put all your eggs in a basket, maybe you'll find a fake tattoo that your especially fond of, by opening up your eggs. Do it.]]