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

I affirm.Realize that my opponent has made no offensive arguments so far in the round. He forfeited Round 2, so I will be spending this speech impacting the voting issues and making the "Pro" ballot a very easy choice.Voting Issue 1: societal benefitVoting Issue 2: personal benefitOne of the reasons that Pro is winning this debate is because I have demonstrated much more societal benefit with the rehabilitative approach than my opponent has shown with the retributive approach. Rehabilitation reduces recidivism rates (allowing for less crime and fewer lives lost), helps the economy (since the costs of rehabilitation are much less than those of retribution), and is consistent with society's intuitions (ex: 88% of people support providing prisoners with skills training). The ONLY offense that my opponent has in response to these benefits is that my sources are not valid. Please remember that I have collected all of my sources from legal dictionaries, professional journalists, or basic polls (ex: statistics in Subpoint C of Contention 1). Ultimately, we can see that since rehabilitaiton not only saves more lives but uses less money in the process, the Pro side should certainly win those voting issue. As my opponent has silently agreed to by conceiding in his speech in Round 1, whichever side upholds utilitarianism is the one that deserves victory. We can see that the Pro clearly saves more lives and protects them at the same time. Reduced recidivism and reduced costs create a win-win situation that my opponent has been unable to refute throughout the progression of this debate.But even if you don't buy that, the other of the two reasons that the Pro wins this debate is that the rehabilitative approach is, as I have stated in my speeches of Rounds 1 and 2, better for individuals. First, look to where I talk about how ONE IN THREE children with a parent in prison drop out of school. Youth whose parents go to jail are SEVEN TIMES more likely to be convicted as a crime as adults. I am sure my opponent would agree with me that we serve justice where it is due and do not serve justice where it is not due. To prevent tearing innocent families apart and creating a domino effect of clandestine crime, the rehabilitative approach must clearly be prioritized on top of the retributive approach. Furthermore, ex-inmates are more than TWICE as likely to report hepatitis C infections, tuberculosis, and AIDS. Finally, the victims of the current retributive system of justice have had access to fewer rights and benefits than everyone else, making the retributive approach an inequal balance of justice. If you believe that the social contract, access to human rights, or cohesion in families are important, judge, then the Pro side clearly wins on this voting issue as well. Keep in mind that my burden to you in this round was that it is important to consider reforming offenders as opposed to just turning them into prison-dwellers. If you believe that decreasing recidivism rates, protecting families, protecting health, promoting constitutional rights, serving justice proportionally, evading racial discrimination, saving money, or upholding well-being is important, then the Pro side clearly wins this debate. I have responded to all of my opponent's speculative questions that he made in Round 1, and you can clearly see that he has conceded all of the technics (value, VC, definitions, burdens) and has made no effort to support UNIQUE BENEFITS to the prioritization of the retributive system of justice over the rehabilitative system of justice.I would like the judges and my opponent to remember that this is not a dichotomous debate. We do not have to pick, as citizens and as a federal government, between rehabilitation and retribution. We can have both! The most important thing in this debate to realize, however, is that the rehabilitative approach better achieves utilitarianism and constitutional ideals. While we can implement the retributive system of justice in U.S. prisons around the nation, I have clearly shown throughout this debate that it is more important to serve rehabilitation and then retribution rather than vice versa. The government needs to be careful with how it prioritizes, or it may be undermining its own premises and ideals.All of the technics have been conceded, and all of my offensive arguments carry throughout this debate. Judge, you should pick the side that better achieves utilitarianism: upholding the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For all reasons, I see no other option than the Pro ballot.Thus, I affirm.