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

I affirm. Here are my standards and arguments.value - morality, because “ought to” implies a moral obligation. definitions: “Valued” is defined as considered to be important. Most importantly, “rehabilitation” is defined as punishment intended to reform a convict so that he can lead a productive life.value criterion - the social contract. My criterion of social contract is justified first because people give up rights to the government in exchange for protection, which requires government to protect them. Second, the social contract legitimates the government. The idea of the social contract is in place today to make sure that a government can be agreed upon by all citizens to avoid civil tyrannies. I argue that since citizens are loyal to their government, the government ought to prioritize protecting them and their rights. Without this balance of loyalty, a peaceful, productive, and successful society cannot exist. The Affirmative burden is to prove that it is important to consider reformation of an offender in the traditional criminal justice system. The Negative must prove that retribution upholds the social contract overwhelmingly better than does rehabilitation in order to be eligible to win.Contention One: Rehabilitation is best for society. It is an effective way to protect all sectors of citizenry.Subpoint A: Rehabilitation overwhelmingly decreases recidivism rates. Cullen writes: our the “best bet” for reducing recidivism and improving the lives of those processed through the correctional system is to involve them in rehabilitation programs that have therapeutic integrity. Rehabilitation is an important strategy for preventing the victimization of citizens. The past success of rehabilitation is empirically proven. For example, a report analyzed a full 200 studies and concluded that the difference in recidivism between rehabilitation and retribution was 6 percentage points (44% for rehab vs. 50% for retribution). This reduction “represents a 12 percent decrease in recidivism". This disparity shows that society is safer if it implements rehabilitation in the criminal justice system. Less recidivism means less crime, which is better for ordinary citizens.Subpoint B: Rehabilitation is better for families. Kim writes: "the most harmful result of needlessly incarcerating nonviolent offenders is what it does to families. More than 1/3 of children with a parent in prison drop out of school. Youth whose parents go to prison are 7 times more likely to be convicted of a crime as adults. These people need treatment, not punishment. Prison doesn't treat their problems and rips apart innocent families whose wounds may not heal for generations." Thus, the social contract can only be protected if the government protects families and prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution.Subpoint C: Rehabilitation is better for health and stability. Wilson observes that: unforgiveness is stressful. "Because stress is linked to health, forgiveness is also related to health." A flexible system of rehabilitation serves to decrease anxiety and increase physical welfare in victims, which upholds the social contract. Furthermore, a study conducted by a private firm saw that 40% of adults believe that the main purpose of prison is rehabilitation, rather than deterrence, punishment, or the protection of society. Furthermore, 81 percent of people support alternatives for offenders such as mandatory education and job training; 88 percent support providing prisoners with skills training. To protect both the health and wishes of citizens, particularly those at the disadvantaged end of a crime, the government has an obligation to implement rehabilitative procedures in the criminal justice system. Straight punishment creates neither a relieving nor a physically healthy effect in the victim, which is contradictory to both morality and the social contract. Contention Two: Rehabilitation is best for the offender. The social contract mandates that all sectors of citizenry be protected. Criminals must also be served proper justice that matches the magnitude of crime to that of punishment, and rehabilitation is one of the few ways to do this.Subpoint A: Rehabilitation protects constitutional rights. Rotman writes: An atmosphere of imminent danger to physical well-being not only infringes upon constitutional provisions but creates the possibility of criminal liabilities. A failure to provide rehabilitation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Offenders should be punished for their assault on society, but not in a way that is detrimental to their basic rights. The social contract mandates that we prioritize the provisions of the constitution and due process above all else, and this intuitive access to rights is promoted with the rehabilitative approach but undermined by the retributive approach.Subpoint B: Rehabilitation serves justice to offenders proportionally. Green explains situations where some people cannot be held as accountable for crimes because of conditions beyond their control. She talks about 2 situations in which this happens to an offender: "First, she is excluded from participation in the political life of the community, having no real chance to make her voice heard where laws and policies under which she must live are decided. Second, she has been excluded from a fair opportunity to acquire the economic and material benefits that others enjoy." Banks observes that: "the state should recognize that it plays a part in causing crime and should recognize its role toward crime prevention by providing rehabilitation to assist the offender in not committing further crime." Since the government does not balance opportunities for its citizens equally, it should take into consideration this inequality when assigning punishment. Rehabilitation is an efficacious way to uphold the social contract and pursue morality. Contention Three: Retribution is horribly ineffective. The retributive process in the current United States criminal justice system is immoral and coercive.Subpoint A: Retribution is racially discriminatory. The U.S. Census observes that the nation is roughly 30 percent Hispanic or black. However, the American Sociological Association points out that in a recent observation, minorities were 60 percent of all inmates in U.S. prisonsin 2004. Since minorities are not inherently less moral than whites, there is no warrant in the disproportionate representation of minorities with the current system of retribution. The only way to solve crime and restore equality is by prioritizing the rehabilitative approach.Subpoint B: Retribution is less cost-efficient than rehabilitation. A report from the Center on Crime, Communities and Culture states that it costs $25,000 to incarcerate a prisoner for one year; educating a prisoner for one year costs only $2,500. Educating inmates could potentially save the state millions of dollars by preventing recidivism. Furthermore, it costs $16 a day to subject someone on probation to supervision, including drug treatment and counseling, compared with $50 a day to keep an inmate in prison. The government has a moral obligation to provide social programs and opportunities for its citizens. The capacity to do this is increased with a rehabilitative approach and suppressed with the retributive approach. Subpoint C: The retributive approach damages the well-being of offenders. Bronsteen writes: ex-inmates are more than twice as likely to report hepatitis C infections, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and urinary tract infections. Moreover, they report much higher levels of chronic headaches, sleeping problems, dizziness, and heart problems. By prioritizing rehabilitation over retribution, the government can protect the pursuit of happiness by preventing the proliferation of diseases. There are more optimal ways to protect society and bring justice to offenders without compromising morality, which is the effect of the current retributive approach. Thus, I affirm.