Rehabilitation is more important than punishment

Before I get into refutation of my opponent's case I feel couple key issues are important enough to warrant mentioning. First the burden of proof is on my opponent since they are advocating a change to the status quo. What this means is that the Con has the power of fiat, and if pro cannot warrant their stance in greater magnitude than the I can either refute it or make a case for punishment; then you must vote Con by default. that Said, since my opponent has made such an extensive argument for his case (using up roughly 7100 out the 8000 characters offered) through the course of the Con's argumentation I will simply be refuting his arguments. If I am able to do so, then you must Con; If not then vote Pro. So going on to my opponent's opening arguments, he makes an incredibly valid point that when considering this issue, the debate is never in black and white, and that there can be some cross-overs of similar values. Keeping this in mind; I ask that you reject the conclusion to my opponent's opening and instead present this though. While Rehabilitation is not within itself a bad thing (by any means whatsoever) if we do not look to Punishment first then not only can justice never happen, but proper rehabilitation can never happen. Therefore me must first look to punishment so justice can occur; at that point we are able to consider rehabilitation and the issue can be fully debated. Now going on to my opponent's case- Emotion (1)- First of all here, my opponent points out the obvious truth that any-one would want the criminal who did wrong to them punished. However I am a firm believer in mercy and justice being co-dependent. Therefore I completely reject the notion my opponent pushes that all of these various crimes will always result in the death penalty. Whereas the blatant fact is that the death penalty is reserved for criminals of greater magnitude. In 1977 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for rape was "grossly disproportionate and excessive" (Coker v. Georgia). Since 1976, all executions have been for first degree murder. Some 5,760 people were sentenced to death between 1973 and 1995 and about 5% of those sentences have been carried out. and The rate of death sentences haseven been declining over recent years. In 1994, there were 328 recorded death sentences and this declined to an average of 296 a year over the rest of the decade. The first thing we need to reject in a debate such as this is any concept of emotion. When dealing with these issues we need to look beyond emotion (especially from the victims and offenders) as they only cloud possible decisions with pathos based conclusions. but we must look to justice, and consider which is of greater magnitude; Rehabilitation or Punishment Now going from that much of what my opponent says here is actually detrimental in warranting a case for rehabilitation above protectionism. much of what he says here actually proves that we must look after punishing criminals first, and looking to rehabilitating them second. If criminals are not given the just compensation for their crimes then other innocent people are at risk to be victims of these criminals. Emotion (2)- My opponent brings up a good case here that many people experience the miscarriage of justice; and are wrongly convicted for crimes they did not commit. However this argument is a multiple causation fallacy in the realm of this debate. First, my opponent only gives us the statistics on this situation for the country of Britain; therefore it is not an accurate number to warrant consideration in this case. Second, this indication does not mean that we should completely reject punishment and ultimately justice, but that we need to focus more attention and energy on these things. It points that less energy needs to focused on rehabilitation and more on punishment so the victims of these crimes can receive justice fro the crimes committed against them. My opponent's secondary claim on broken cycles is unwarranted as well. Coming from a family which both of my parents where often in prison or jail, I can attest that while this was hard on me, it led me to develop a strong code of moral ethics. Thus this is a good thing Deterrence- First I cannot argue against my opponent's solid evidence. But again this is also a multiple causation fallacy. One, My opponent attempts to make this claim by looking at only the negative effects of this system and completely ignores the positive benefits it holds to. Two, again this does not point that this system is faulty, but that more energy and focus needs to be afforded in these areas. also extend my arguments in Emotion (1) regarding how the death penalty is reserved for only certain cases. Thus this evidence has little warrant in the field of Rehab v. s. Punishment as a whole. Third, again my opponent doesn't really solve for the problem. As we've both come to the conclusion on both punishment and rehabilitation can exist at the same time. So not in status quo, after the emphasis on punishment has been established and justice has taken place; we can then consider and enact rehabilitation. Mental Illness- Again this does not mean we should completely reject this system. It simply shows that we need to put more energy into Punishing these criminals in a more just manner. And again once we have accomplished this, then Rehabilitation is able to take it's course. When the punishment is just, then rehabilitation can come into effect; with-out it we cannot ever even hope for any manner of justice or rehabilitation. Besides, when one who is diagnosed properly with mental illness commits a crime this is taken into consideration. As a child my younger cousin and I where raised as siblings because her mother had the mental illness "Paranoia Schizophrenia" and when she would break the law because of what the voices in her head told her to do (yes it happened a few times) this was taken into consideration in court. Criminalization- First the initial portion of my opponent's claims here are unwarranted. He never shows either empirically, or logically why these claims are true. He just asserts that they are. That said you cannot consider it, and I cannot argue it; this argument as a whole is incredibly abusive. Second community sentences are still a form of punishment, and as I have been advocating for this entire round, it is one of the more just punishments that we must look towards in the realm of this debate! My opponent has fallen under the gross ideal that as the con I will only be arguing in favor of harsh and strict punishment; whereas this is far from the truth. Institutionalization- If my opponent does not quote evidence from this source in the round then we cannot consider it. And the argument that he is unable to do so via character limit is a weak one, I also am under a character restriction, and eve more so since I have to both refute my opponent's arguments (in which he used almost the entire 8,000 characters) as well as present my own. Economy- Again, community sentences are still forms of punishment. Therefore my opponent's argument here do nothing to further his stance of rehabilitation, but actually you can count the arguments here as direct benefits to looking to punishment first. so in closing, My opponent's case only looks to the extreme harms of punishing criminals, and offer little on the benefits of rehabilitation. whereas the go even farther to try and warrant community sentences as rehabilitation and not as punishment (which they are) thus making my opponent's entire constructive entirely abusive. there fore I urge a Con vote. While rehabilitation is definitively a beneficial thing, before we can look to it with any kind of positive demeanor we must first look to measures of punishment before we can begin to consider rehabilitation. with that I hand it back over to my capable opponent