Monday, October 22, 2018

We negate:
Resolved: In the United States Criminal Justice System, only those convicted of
violent crimes should be sentenced to prison.
*Italicized text is not meant to be read*

Defs:

Criminal Justice System (NOLO): A generic term for the procedure by which criminal
conduct is investigated, arrests made, evidence gathered, charges brought, defenses
raised, trials conducted, sentences rendered, and punishment carried out

Violent Crime (USC Title 18 § 16): A crime that has an element of “the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another” OR
“any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that
physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of
committing the offense”

Prison (CFR Title 28 § 115): “an institution under Federal or State jurisdiction whose
primary use is for the confinement of individuals convicted of a serious crime, usually in
excess of one year in length, or a felony.”

Observation 1:

While as a whole, non-violent crimes might seem less severe than violent crimes, there are
plenty of nonviolent crimes that match the severity of violent crimes. Think treason, child
pornography, another example, etc. Therefore the treatment of violent and nonviolent criminals
have to match not the category, but the severity of the crime.

Observation 2:

According to the University of Gaslow, The key purposes of prison are incapacitation,
rehabilitation, and deterrence

Observation 3:

Currently, US prisons are failing to fulfill their purposes with mass incarceration resulting in
critical issues such as overcrowding that continue to plague prison systems across the US. Thus
we come up with our

1
 Monday, October 22, 2018
Framework: If we prove that prison abolition with the implementation of alternative
punishments still achieves the key purposes of rehabilitation & deterrence, Con should win this
debate.

Contention 1: Incapacitation

Though prison achieves incapacitation by physically separating prisoners from society

there are two major flaws that come with this:

Firstly, our Subpoint A: Recidivism.

Business Insider reports that currently, 1 out of every 9 individuals in prison serve life
sentences. Meaning 8 out of 9 or 89% of prisoners will be released to society.
furthermore, we’ve already established prison clearly FAILS at rehabilitating prisoners
with it’s 83% recidivism rate. Thus based on the Sentencing Project’s estimate of 2.3
million incarcerated people in the US, 1.7 million people will recommit crimes within
nine years—meaning this incapacitation effect is only temporary. Furthermore, it is
clearly outweighed by the second major flaw:

Subpoint B: Cost

Researchers from the Washington University in St. Louis found that the surface cost of
running prisons costs the U.S. government about $80 billion a year—a gross
underestimation.

Other than the immediate costs of feeding prisoners, paying guards and administration,
cleaning facilities, etc. There is also the social cost of incarceration. People in prison
aren’t able to actively contribute to the economy resulting in a direct drain on taxpayers
& government funds. Moreover, the burden on the families, children and communities of
people who have been locked up increases tremendously.

In total, the Huffington Post reports the full cost of incarceration exceeds 1 trillion US
dollars. More than a fourth of the US’s 4 trillion dollar federal budget in 2017

Carrie Pettus-Davis, director of the university’s Concordance Institute for Advancing

Social Justice explains that for “every dollar in corrections costs, incarceration
generates an additional $10 in social costs”

Compared to alternatives which cost significantly less than prison, the actual
incapacitation effect is extremely minimal and clearly outweighed by the huge economic
cost of prison.

Contention 2: Rehabilitation

Subpoint A: Prison obviously fails at rehabilitating criminals.

2
 Monday, October 22, 2018
Just look at the recidivism rate. According to the US Bureau of Justice statistics, 5 out of
6 or 83% of prisoners were rearrested within a 9 year period. Since prison releases
individuals after long periods of isolation, prisoners are automatically set up to fail at
reintegration into society and are naturally pushed towards a life of crime.

Furthermore, drug addicts clearly are unable to get the help they need within prison.

Thus, to achieve successful integration back into society and rehabilitation, correctional
education programs and rehabilitative programs should be used instead of prison.

Subpoint B: Alternatives such as correctional & treatment programs better achieve the purpose
of rehabilitation

A RAND Corporation meta-analysis of 58 different empirical studies on correctional

programs that fulfilled the criteria of eligible time intervention (1980-2011), outcome
measure, and research design found that

On average, inmates “who participated in correctional education programs had…43

percent lower odds of recidivating than inmates who did not”

For employment, they found that on average,“the odds of obtaining employment post-
release among inmates who participated in correctional education (either academic or
vocational/CTE programs) were 13 percent higher than the odds for those who did
not.”

Furthermore, the authors state that the “direct costs of reincarceration were far greater
than the direct costs of providing correctional education.”

According to Gary Zarkins from RTI international, a study published in the November
edition of Crime & Delinquincy found that “diverting substance- abusing state prisoners
to community-based treatment programs rather than prison could reduce crime rates and
save the criminal justice system billions of dollars relative to current levels” They
elaborate that “diverting [just] 40 percent of eligible offenders would save $12.9
billion.”

Thus, alternatives to prison are a much more cost effective way to better achieve the
purpose of rehabilitation.

Contention 3: Deterrence

Subpoint A: Prison’s deterrence effect is minimal

According to a report by the National Research Council on Mass Incarceration in the

United States, harsher prison sentences don’t decrease crime rates.

3
 Monday, October 22, 2018
Referencing an analysis of a federal program in Virginia that imposed more severe
punishments for gun crimes, they found that “the threat of enhanced sentences had no
apparent deterrent effect”

Furthermore, Valerie Wright from the Sentencing Project writes that, researchers who
“compared crime and punishment trends in the U.S., England, and Sweden, and failed to
find an effect for severity”

Furthermore, they found that teens didn't commit significantly fewer crimes after they
turned 18, even though the severity of punishments increased.

Moreover, the deterrence effect for violent crimes is extremely minimal. One study
included in the report finds that, based on a California law requiring minimum prison
sentences of 25 years for three-strike offenders, at most, there is only a 2% reduction
for felonies limited to people with two strikes.

The report notes that:

“Evidence is limited on the crime prevention effects of most of the policies that
contributed to the post-1973 increase in incarceration rates. Nevertheless, the evidence
base demonstrates that lengthy prison sentences are ineffective as a crime control
measure”

Subpoint B: Alternatives allow for better deterrence

Instead of relying on increasingly severe punishments for deterrence, the National

Institute of Justice explains that “the certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful
deterrent than the punishment.” This is supported by study after study.

Take the 2001 study published in the journal Criminology where researchers found that
the certainty of punishment was a more robust predictor of deterrence than severity.
When the likelihood of apprehension was increased by just 10%, the likelihood of crime
decreased by 3.5%.

Thus by pairing the $80 billion of savings that directly come from prison abolition with
cheaper alternatives such as correctional programs, community service, fines, etc. we are
able to reinvest that money back into law enforcement which increases the certainty of
being caught —the most effective deterrent.

Impact: Prison abolition results in a tremendous $80 billion in direct savings alone. Money
which could employ 1.08 million more police officers or 1.308 million more teachers. Thus

4
 Monday, October 22, 2018
by reinvesting the money saved from prison abolition into effective alternative forms of
corrections, we are effectively fulfilling the original purposes of deterrence and rehabilitation.

Thank you and we urge a con ballot.

5
 Monday, October 22, 2018

Alternative 1: Public Shaming

Peter Moskos, an associate professor at City University of New York, explains that one “purpose
of incarceration…is to make someone feel ashamed” he elaborates that currently, “we just have
this horrible middle process (currently incarceration) to get someone there”

As John Anderson, an International Security and Conflict Resolution Senior, states, “The genius
of alternative punishment lies in its ability to produce guilt, which is essential to the
rehabilitation process. Removing people from their comfort zone and forcing them to interact
with those they have harmed creates an atmosphere that inspires contrition. People who have
committed crimes need to feel genuine remorse for what they have done if they are ever going to
change and be successfully reintroduced to society.”

Moreover, humans are social individuals (this is something deeply ingrained within us since the
beginning of our evolution). Throughout history we have always banded together to survive
whether that be pack hunting, farming, or studying in groups. By capitalizing on this inherent
need for social recognition, we are able to successfully deter any potential criminals from
committing the crime while preventing current criminals from recidivism.

Alternative 2: Fines & Community Service

Alternative 3: Rehabilitation Programs

Alternative 4: Capital punishment for extremely violent repeat offenders

Not only is capital punishment more economically viable since convicts serving life sentence
have to be clothed, fed, and managed for the rest of their lives. Capital Punishment also actually
works in terms of deterrence:

Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin,
and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in
18 fewer murders.

On the state level, Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado
found that For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred.
Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted.

Thank you, we negate

6
 Monday, October 22, 2018

NOTES:
Pro: Feasibility: Only viable change that can be made in the US CJS is to release non-violent
prisoners.

Don’t mass manipulators of stock market deserve prison? Yes but currently they don’t
get prison so yaaaa

Claim: prison limited impact on recidivism rate, Alternatives proven to be more efficient &
effective

E: pew Charitable trust, longer prison terms ≠ deterrence/incapacitation

California law, Mental health = less recidivism vs. just prison

Council of California Advisory committee, extra time in prison ≠ no re-offense. Rehab will
lower recidivism

Impact: Recidivism -> less crime = good

Entire cost of prison is only .002%

Need more concise alternatives, specific definitions of crimes -> Answer to why it hasn’t
happened yet?
How halfway houses work -> we integrate u back into society, but u are still under control, u can
go out in the day and do stuff but must account for ur time during the day, theres curfew, etc.

How rehab centers work -> e.g. for drugs, 12 step process that you go through, (2 kinds: you go
to it & don’t live in it, other one is that u have to stay there)

Probation -> don’t go to prison, but set of rules u must follow. If rules are broken then prison
(only works when prison exists)

Summary of Summary:

Where judges make their decision, crystallization

Main questions to think about:

1. Which contentions have come up most often?

2. Which contentions have the most significant impacts? (significance = impacts that you’ve
won, ones that cross multiple axises, important to your case)

3. Did your opponents drop any of ur contentions (identify dropped contention, explain why it’s
significant can’t just identify it, have to say why it matters. What impact it gives)

7
 Monday, October 22, 2018
Grouping Sub-points

Debate not gonna use it, 1 & 3 & 6 (attack 6)

Can’t db8 about whether or not they lose it 2 & 4 & 5 & 7

Signpost everything!

number grouped arguments/clashes

use tagline

use compared to & must weigh

remember

extend key piece of evidence

biggest issue is

we better achieve the framework of X by Y (fw arguments at beginning)

The FW of this debate is on the most economically beneficial policy for society.

First on the voting issue of solving crime, The opponents try to claim in their first contention that
prison better solves crime by physically locking criminals up, but compared to that, remember
our rebuttal about the recidivism rate—79% according to the BJS. Thus the best way of solving
crime is through our alternatives that make no one want to commit crime in the first place as seen
in our Emory University evidence.

Finally, the biggest issue in this debate—cost. we we tell you in our claim 1 of contention 1 that
currently prison costs 1 trillion dollars & that there are much more cost effective alternatives
such as public humiliation or capital punishment as outlined in our second contention.

Thus we better achieve the framework of the most economically beneficial policy for society by
completely deleting the prison system which costs $1 trillion dollars and replacing it with
significantly cheaper alternatives that do a better job deterring crime—resulting in more people
contributing to the economy creating a positive feed back loop

Needed:

8
 Monday, October 22, 2018
(empirical evidence needed) but from NYT:

Topic Analysis:
Federalism -> separation of powers between the states and the federal government Why
important? Bc US has diff form of government than other countries = diff criminal justice
systems

Confederacy: -> 13 colonies join together where they have equal power and work together -> no
one wants to give up their power thus federalism -> two levels of government, state &
government

(group cannot outweigh rights of individual state)

STATE: aka reserved powers stuff over ur daily life education, family, social matters strictly
state (federal Govs cannot make laws that infringe it) (10th amendment)

Health, public safety, marriage, etc

Denied stuff:

Make treaties, print money, deny rights to citizens

NATIONAL: aka delegated powers (either expressed, implied e.g. immigration, or inherited)

Expressed: Article 1 Section 18, 18 clauses (Tax, coin, trade, war, patents, etc.)

Implied: (building national highways, build dams, determine crimes)

Inherent: regulate immigration, protect nation, diplomatic regulations

Denied stuff:

infringe on rights, can’t tax states (but can tax ppl within states), delegated powers

BOTH: concurrent powers -> collect taxes, define crimes, condemn/take away property for
private use

9
 Monday, October 22, 2018
denied: violating rights of citizens

SUPREMACY:

Constitution, federal laws congress and treaties, state laws

Potential argument: Adopting this = making US federal government infringe on state rights
(inherently unfeasible)

double jeopardy (only be tried of the same crime once)

10