Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

Good, rational decisions can only be made when we have all of the relevant information. As was discussed above, relying solely on intuitions without first validating those intuitions can lead to gross inefficiencies and decreased effectiveness in the criminal justice system. Decisions about sentencing should be evidence-based. - A Report by Christopher D. Scalzo, President of the South Carolina Public Defender Association/ E. Charles Grose, Jr., Circuit Defender, Eighth Judicial Circuit/ Ashley Pennington, Circuit Defender, Ninth Judicial Circuit/ March 5, 2009 In today's debate round, I ask all the judges to look at the EVIDENCE that has been presented, to look at the facts, and make a judgement based on that. Clearly the ONLY evidence that has been presented in today's and in fact the only arguments, have been in support of the AFFIRMATIVE or the PRO. It is because of this, because there is no reason this plan would be a bad idea, and every reason it would be a good idea, that I ask you vote PRO. Below I have posted more evidence to support my conclusions that Alternative sentencing for certain federal offenders would be a great idea. A. Prison Fails Incarceration decreases public safety A Report byChristopher D. Scalzo, President of the South Carolina Public Defender Association/ E. Charles Grose, Jr., Circuit Defender, Eighth Judicial Circuit/ Ashley Pennington, Circuit Defender, Ninth Judicial Circuit/ March 5, 2009 http://search.yahoo.com...**http%3a//www.scstatehouse.gov/citizensinterestpage/SentencingReformCommission/PDAReport.doc (is really a word document you download) Incarcerating the wrong people does not increase public safety—it decreases the effectiveness of our prisons by reducing the space available for those who truly pose a threat to public safety. Incarcerating the wrong people does not reduce recidivism—it increases it. Incarcerating the wrong people does not increase the efficient use of tax dollars—it ensures that we will waste money on sentencing options that do not produce the results we want. Incarcerating the wrong people means that we have failed to use an appropriate available sentencing option, and have thus reduced the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. We recommend the Commission adopt the principle that we should incarcerate only those people who need to be incarcerated as part of the framework for attaining its sentencing reform objectives. MPX: This evidence explicitly states that prison does not increase public safety when we incarcerate non-violent offenders. It also goes on to say that incarcerating these people actually is not cost effective either. This means that the status quo fails both criteria and change is needed. Incarceration increases recidivism Roger K. Warren (National Center for State Courts for the Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections), "Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries", August 2007  http://static.nicic.gov...; The research about what works is the product of diligent scientific investigation and analysis by researchers in the fields of criminology, psychology, mental health, substance abuse, criminal justice, and corrections. The research is particularly noteworthy because it has also proven that punishment, incarceration, and other sanctions do not reduce recidivism and, in fact, increase offender recidivism slightly. The principal significance of this body of research is threefold: first, we now know that treatment and rehabilitation can ―work to reduce recidivism; second, for appropriate offenders alternatives to imprisonment can be both less expensive and more effective in reducing crime; and, third, even where alternatives to incarceration do not decrease recidivism, they often do not increase it either, thereby providing a cost-effective alternative to imprisonment without compromising public safety. MPX: The scientific research and analysis done by experts in criminology, psychology, mental health, substance abuse, criminal justice, and corrections shows that incarceration increases recidivism. Not only does prison fail to provide a viable alternative, it actually makes the problem worse. It is because keeping the status quo would mean continued failure that I believe that certain federal offenders should receive alternative sentencing because such a policy would be cost effective. B. Alternative Sentencing is Cost Effective Cost-effective alternative Research Triangle Institute ("RTI is an independent, nonprofit institute that provides research, development, and technical services to government and commercial clients worldwide.\" -from their home page) \"Study Finds Drug Treatment Is Cost-Effective Alternative to Prison,\" February 2006 http://www.rti.org... Alternative programs that divert felony drug offenders to substance abuse treatment programs rather than prison terms could save the U.S. criminal justice system millions of dollars and reduce recidivism, according to a study conducted by researchers at RTI International. The study, funded by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse through a subcontract with the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, was published in the latest issue of Justice Research and Policy (Issue 7, Vol. 1). "The study shows that drug treatment programs for felony offenders provide great economic benefits to the criminal justice system and reduce recidivism rates among offenders, providing societal and economic benefits," said Gary Zarkin, Ph.D., principal investigator for the study. "Based on the results, policymakers should consider diversion programs for higher-risk drug offenders in addition to low-risk offenders usually eligible for such programs." MPX: By reducing crime, alternative sentencing increases public safety. MPX: Because alternative programs for drug offenders save millions of dollars and reduce recidivism, alternative sentencing is cost effective. Alternative sentencing cost effective Roger K. Warren (National Center for State Courts for the Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections), "Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries", August 2007  http://static.nicic.gov...; The research about what works is the product of diligent scientific investigation and analysis by researchers in the fields of criminology, psychology, mental health, substance abuse, criminal justice, and corrections. The research is particularly noteworthy because it has also proven that punishment, incarceration, and other sanctions do not reduce recidivism and, in fact, increase offender recidivism slightly. The principal significance of this body of research is threefold: first, we now know that treatment and rehabilitation can ―work to reduce recidivism; second, for appropriate offenders alternatives to imprisonment can be both less expensive and more effective in reducing crime; and, third, even where alternatives to incarceration do not decrease recidivism, they often do not increase it either, thereby providing a cost-effective alternative to imprisonment without compromising public safety. MPX: Alternative sentencing does decrease recidivism, as the evidence shows. MPX: Because alternative sentencing decreases crime, it is cost effective and increases public safety. Judges, we have seen that Alternative sentencing for these offenders would provide cost effective results. Clearly, this is a great idea, a smart idea, a cost effective idea. It is because this plan would achieve the goal of cost effectiveness, that I ask you vote PRO at the end of today's debate round. Thank you.