Being poor should be a crime and repeat offenders should be given the Death Penalty

1)Don't you forget, Sparta lost :P "What kind of an oppressive world would we live in if we threw people in jail the minute they became poor? This program is for people who are poor for an extended period of time but also do not have the means to crawl out of poverty and refuse to try." Under this proposition, the United States would be this oppressive world. Nowhere in my opponent's parameters does it say they have to be poor for an extended period of time. Merely, they just have to be poor. So basically, unless the minute someone drops below the poverty line, they apply for a job or provide "evidence" then they go to jail. The parameters provide no time frame, so we must assume, the time frame is instantaneous. Why should we change the parameters now that we are 3 rounds in…out of four rounds. Furthermore, my opponent clearly misinterprets my statistic, I was not saying that 58.5% of the US population (aged 21 to 75) is living in poverty at this moment; I was saying 58.5% of the US population will at some point be living in poverty. Under my opponent's plan, 58.5% of the population will be subject to prison terms (or even death). Now if you "eliminate those who already have the means to crawl out of poverty" then the number is still going to be significant even without an instantaneous timeframe. "Thank you Sherlock Holmes we were all wondering that...." The sarcasm was not needed…Although, I believe it goes "thank you Sherlock" not "Sherlock Holmes" :P "Assuming that NONE of them can get a single job out of 4 tries lasting a span of 40 years (unlikely) then I would keep the option open, especially since the true percentage is south of 14% and not 60%....." Concession. The true number of people (aged 21 – 75) who will eventually drop below the poverty line will be 58.5%. In my opening arguments I stated, "according to the United States government, 58.5% of people will spend at least a year below the poverty line some time in their life". This proposition is still insane… 2)Cruel and unusual punishment "the only way to violate this law is if you are actively not seeking to try to improve your situation, not just by being poor." There was no specific timeline you have to get above the poverty line or prove you have the means to get above the poverty line. So it must be assumed they go to jail the instant they dip below the poverty line. Also, my opponent never said what kind of work. Illicit work (drug dealing) can get you out of poverty (just look at the people who control the Mexican drug cartels you cannot define them as poor) they earn their money illicitly yet, they still have the potential to make money. So how exactly does this end crime if crime can be the thing which gets a person out of poverty? This law will not change anything because being a hitman for a drug cartel can be considered work…in other words, my opponent wants to add another useless law to the United States law code. Next my opponent get's into economics, the average technical school/two year college is a two year program and costs about $3,000 a year or $6,000 total. (1) (this will vary college to college but, not by much.) A three year prison sentence costs around $44,000 a year (2). (This number will vary state to state but, not by much). So which is cheaper? I'd say the technical school/two year college. My opponent, also, misinterprets his statistics, the rate of graduation from college is 57% not, 43%. If they had actually read their CNN article they would see it says "Forty-three percent of students who start college will not graduate in 6 years." So if 43% do not graduate then 57% do graduate. Furthermore, despite the huge student loans, "Taxpayers and other lenders have little risk of losing money on the loans." (3) "Oh yes the false number your using even though the program only affects 14% of all Americans TOPS. " I implore my opponent to read my arguments instead of just skimming them…you are going to be imprisoning 60% of people at some point in their life. Not now, in the future. "3 tries at 3 and 1/3 years equals exactly 10 years…" Time to do some more economics work. Let's say none of these people get killed in prison or need medical attention. We will also assume the current population stays constant to make the numbers easier to work with. Since I have established that at some point in time 58.5% of Americans will WHETHER NOW OR IN THE FUTURE dip below the poverty line and there is no set time frame for when the imprisonment begins (so we must assume instantaneously) then, 58.5% of the current population of the US (311.5919 million people) means 182.3 million people will be imprisoned for at least 3 years. So if we say $44,000 dollars. Now time for simple multiplication to be fair we shall say only 40 million people go to jail for these 3 years and to be fair $30,000 dollars a year for a prison sentence (in many crime ridden states it is in fact a higher cost…) so $90,000 equals 3,600,000 million dollars (or 3,600,000,000,000 dollars) over an extended period of time. We must also keep in mind this is only for the first 3 year sentence and not even taking in account most people. Compared to this, social security is cheap… Even if we take my opponent 13.5% number (downgraded to 5%) we still have a nice 5% times 310 million people multiplied by $90,000 dollars for a 3 year sentence. Comes out to a wonderful $1,395,000,000,000. Still a significant number. In terms of cost, I would say it's much cheaper to have the government simply pay for a poor person's 2 year college costs. They have comparable graduation rates (57% to 60%) and it is still cheaper to pay a person's college tuition. 3)Will not change anything If the point is to lower crime, then more police lowers crime. Also, if reeducation lowers crime then send people to school. Since we have established lower crime is directly related to more schooling then send people to school it is cheaper and the success rates of the schools are comparable. Schools also have the added benefit of not costing so much that it would effectively collapse the United States government…Educate people then they do not have to face prison. You may only kill 1.024% of people at a tremendous cost. "the prisoner is given five tries to help himself and still does not succeed, meaning that after 5 attempts there is clearly something wrong with the person, not the system." As I have said above, you can still use illicit means to gain the capital you need to stay out of prison. I mean those people who are in gangs are not just going to get up and reform. What makes my opponent think they are going to be able to get these poor people in prison when we cannot even stop murders from occurring? I mean there are entire gangs of poor people who are trying to get rich. As for the societal benefits, yes, crime affects all people. Crime rates are high in areas ridden with poverty. But, is my opponent changing anything? No. Work is implicitly defined, through this debate, as the pursuit of wealth. Drug cartels are attempting to sell drugs to make money. So what is my opponent changing? As I stated above, "being a hitman for a drug cartel can be considered work." 1. http://www.collegeview.com... 2. http://www.theatlantic.com... 3. http://www.usatoday.com...