Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

This is my first debate here, and my first "formal" debate ever, so forgive me if I do something wrong. I will start by accepting the information you give to be true as stated. The reason for this is your cited sources are the homepages for various websites. There is not one source that allows me to see this information upon clicking the hyperlink. It is burdensome in a debate to force the other side to search your sources in order to verify, especially if there are time constraints. I have no easy of way knowing if you made up these stats, misread them, misunderstood them, or if they are correct. To my understanding, your plan involves "intense supervision", which I assume is above and beyond the current parole/probation/community supervision that is offered. This will cost more than the status quo. However, in 2003-2004, 29.9% of those exiting supervised release, parole, or probation were back in jail; however, 37.6% of those re-jailed committed new crimes. This illustrates that we need a new system, and that nothing of the status quo works. However, if this is true, then the savings do not materialize. Pro states that that his plan has a "[savings] of about $27,888 per inmate resulting in an overall net savings of over $984 million per year". This results in only 35,283 inmates receiving this alternative sentence, assuming there are no additional expenses (personnel, buildings, etc.). However, in the 2003-04 season, 70,929 people were convicted of federal crimes. This means that HALF of convicted prisoners would have to meet the criteria for the safety valve. This is unlikely, as some of these people are convicted of violent crimes, supervision violations, and immigration violations. Beyond that, Pro cites a study that shows only 37.2% of drug offenders would qualify, yet Pro expects a larger percent of the entire prison population to qualify. Pro argues as proof that prison is a "school of crime" because 41% are rearrested or parole revoked; however, that is misleading. Just because they are rearrested, doesn't mean they are guilty. It also doesn't mean they learned a new criminal trade from "school"; in the case of drugs and robbery, they likely went back to that same trade that landed them in prison. Furthermore, this stat INCLUDES the people who have their parole revoked, which in the 03-04 season was 44% of people whose parole ended with 27% violating their parole. This means they weren't following the rules of their release. This can be: not having a job, drinking, not reporting in, being near children, using drugs, not sleeping where you live, and various other issues. These are not crimes per se, but it is enough to put them back in prison to serve the rest of their term. The remainder of recidivism is due to prejudice, stress, pressure, and desperation (which I can attest to personally), more than going to "school". When almost 95% of federal arrests are felonies, and employers almost always ask if you have a felony (and often times any crime), these individuals have a hard time finding work. This leads to a vicious circle of crime, in order to live. It is society to blame when people can't get second chances, but no amount of education or supervision will remedy this. The most practical thing to do is offer tax credits to those who hire ex-cons, but that is an expense, and would raise the cost further. Your study from Dallas is incomplete and is prejudicial. If the stat of 41% for recidivism is for three years, and the stat given for the success of Dallas' system is 98% is for less than two years, it is unfair to compare the two. Furthermore, Dallas includes juveniles, whose records are expunged, so they aren't subject to discrimination as adult offenders. Pro states that arguments are to be made on criminal justice and cost effectiveness. The most cost effective measure to reduce crime would be to decriminalize drugs. This would immediately reduce the number of arrests by about 25%, and the prison population by similar numbers. Drug use would no longer be a crime, legitimate businesses could be regulated and taxed, drugs could be taxed to offer help to those addicted, the DEA would have less expenses, and the price of drugs would go down, so drug money (robbery) would be less of a factor. This is far more cost-effective than any correctional measure could ever be. http://www.justice.gov... http://www.bjs.gov... (page 1-3,17)