The defense system in both Canada and the U.S. is far to lenient

Thanks, Pro, for beginning this debate. Rebuttal -- 1. Pro insists that the U.S. (and Canadian) prison system is too lenient because they negotiate sentences in certain cases based on good behavior or other conditions. However, for criminals convicted of the most heinous crimes, they are generally not allowed parole and often being let out on good behavior is not an option. In fact, 1/3 of the life sentences being served in jail do not have the option of being freed on the basis of parole [1]. 2. Phillip Garrido wound up serving 11 out of a 50 year sentence for being caught trying to sexually assault a girl. As a parolee, he was monitored, wore a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet, and was regularly visited by police [2]. So as you can see, the authorities didn't just "let this guy go fee" but instead kept him on his toes by visiting often, and making him wear an ankle bracelet. Of course none of this was enough to deter his next crime; however, which was unfortunate but does not indicate that Garrido was made a free man. Additionally, Garrido's wife was a co-conspirator and largely responsible for Jaycee's kidnapping. My point here is that Garrido probably would not have been able to carry out his next crime without help, meaning his punishment wasn't "too lenient" but rather he was 'fortunate' enough to have help to be able to commit a second crime. Arguments -- 3. Parole was introduced as an alternative to incarceration when it became apparent that jail time was unsatisfactorily effective at preventing further criminal behavior by offenders [3]. People thought that it would be better to try rehabilitation rather than punishment. This is especially true in cases like Jaycee's where the offender was evaluated and deemed psychologically unstable. In that case, intense psychiatric therapy might be more beneficial than jailing which could perhaps make the problem worse. This is also true in cases of drug addicts, which Garrido also was. While I do think that this man in particular probably should have not been granted parole, the point here is to prove that not all cases of parole are bad and in fact some cases can benefit both the offender and society by trying to rehabilitate offenders rather than simply jail them. Especially for these reasons... 4. Over-crowding. It is less expensive to supervise a parolee than to incarcerate a prisoner. In the United States especially we suffer from an over-crowding of jails; this problem is considered the "greatest problem" that jails face today [4]. Should we accept that people are overall becoming more immoral, or perhaps consider that some people are simply jailed unfairly or unnecessarily? I've already pointed out that studies showed incarceration alone was ineffective at solving the problem. Consider, for instance, the reality that legalizing the death penalty does not actually deter crime [5]. This proves that simply imposing harsher penalties does not really deter crime, and other issues should be addressed. 5. As I mentioned, should we just accept that people are acting more wrongfully than in the past? That doesn't seem entirely logical. Many people are locked up on behalf of unjust laws. For instance, most of the War on Drugs has been a complete and utter failure. People are being charged with felonies and lives are being ruined based on ridiculous laws, such as it being illegal to have sex with the lights on in Virginia [6] or perhaps more seriously ridiculous drug laws that have the capacity to ruin lives. Consider, for instance, Governor Pataki's proposal to increase minor marijuana offenses from misdemeanors to felonies [7]. In other words, consuming a bit of marijuana -- which in every way is LESS harmful to both the individual and society than alcohol -- will cost people thousands in unnecessary legal fees, swamp the criminal justice system, and brand someone forever with being convicted of a felony: something that will be tracked and haunt them for the rest of their life. As you can see, this law and ones like it are absurd and can be very harsh. So in short, while our prison system may be too lenient in some areas, they are also significantly harsh in others thereby equaling it out. Perhaps the problem isn't that our system is "far too lenient" but rather too lenient and too harsh in the wrong areas. This general statement, however (the resolution) certainly cannot apply to the system as a whole. 6. Parole gives people the chance to contribute to society, which benefits society as a whole so that they don't waste tax dollars on housing people who need not be in jail. Agreed, criminals who have committed the most atrocious crimes - kidnapping, rape, murder, etc. - should probably not receive parole. However, most people out on parole are heavily monitored and have not done heinous things. I contend that our system merely needs revision, though is not overall "far too lenient" as the resolution implies. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to Pro. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.docshare.com... [4] http://findarticles.com... [5] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [6] http://www.talkgold.com... [7] http://www.washingtonpost.com...