I affirm resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States

criminal justice system.

Lipsey defines rehabilitation:
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL REHABILITATION: A REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS Mark W. Lipsey1 and Francis
T. Cullen2 1 Institute for Public Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212; email: mark.lipsey@vanderbilt.edu 2 Division of
Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45226-0389; email: cullenft@email.uc.edu Annual Review of Law and Social Science,
volume 3, 2007

Rehabilitation treatment is distinguished from correctional sanctions by the centrality of interactions with the offenders aimed at motivating, guiding, and
supporting constructive change in whatever characteristics or circumstances engender their criminal behavior
or subvert their prosocial behavior . It is typically provided in conjunction with some form of sanction (e.g., incarceration or
probation) but is not defined by that sanction and could , in principle , be delivered without any accompanying sanction. Cognitive behavioral
therapy, for instance, involves exercises and instruction designed to alter the dysfunctional
thinking patterns exhibited by many offenders (e.g., a focus on dominance in interpersonal relationships, feelings of entitlement, self-justification, displacing
blame, and unrealistic expectations about the consequences of antisocial behavior; Walters 1990).

According to Blacks Law Dictionary, Retribution is punishment imposed as repayment or

revenge for the offense committed
Ought expresses a duty or obligation.
The value is Justice, which is defined as giving each his or her due.
Accept this value because:
1. Since the resolution is a question of a policy in the criminal justice system, which aims to
distribute justice, the better side will achieve just that. External factors not relating to the
aims of the criminal justice system are irrelevant.
2. Justice is a pre-requisite to other values, such as morality and societal welfare, because,
through laws, it enforces what those values aim to achieve.
3. Obligations and permissibility of actions are expressed through laws in society.
The Social Contract, an agreement between the government and the people, explains why we
follow the rules of justice.
Soazig Le Bihan, [Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Ecology, Metaphysics], " Lecture 14, Social
Contract" Cut at VBI 2012, Clendenin/Dharani lab.

Social Contract Theories give us an answer as to why it is reasonable for us to follow moral
rules. 1. We have agreed to follow the rules because they are in our interest - it is rational
for us to desire to follow the rules. 2. Within the social contract, we are bound to actually follow the
rules because we have agreed to do it (under the condition that other will follow them as
well) 3. Within the social contract, we will actually follow the rules because we have given up some of
our liberties to the common power, which will enforce the rules, that is, punish anyone who
does not comply with them.
Hausman furthers:
[Prof. of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin Madison], A LOCKEAN ARGUMENT FOR UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE,
Social Philosophy and Policy, Volume 28, Issue 2 (May 2011), pp 166-191

the Lockeans central goals of government are the protection of life, property, and
freedom, government has a role in addressing threats to life, property, and freedom when it is
difficult or socially costly for individuals to protect themselves . Unlike those who read Locke as insisting that government only protect rights, I
take Locke to be concerned with the whole gamut of threats to life, property, and freedom. Crime, ignorance, malnutrition,
tyrannical or bloated government, badly defined or poorly enforced property rights, [and] foreign invasion, and
disease all limit life expectancy or freedom. Individuals can and should cope with some of these threats themselves. But if
Because

individuals cannot protect themselves and government action is not itself a greater threat than the problem it aims to tackle, then government
should act. If (1) health care and public health measures are effective ways of addressing the threats that disease poses to lives and freedom, (2)
these measures do not themselves threaten freedom, and (3) individuals cannot provide their own health care, then government has a
responsibility to insure that healthcare is available.32 That equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom implies that health care
should be available to all.

The criminal justice system arose from the obligation of the government to protect the civil
rights of their people expressed in the Social Contract. Therefore, the value criterion is upholding
the social contract. (The role of the cjs is to fulfill the greater obligation of the government to
uphold the social contract.)
Furthermore, a government has an obligation to promote the general welfare of the people, this
includes the welfare of criminals as well.
Contention 1: Rehabilitation solves for the root cause of crime and provides for public safety.
Hurd writes:
Heidi M. Hurd [Prof. of Law and Philosophy, University of Illinois], Expressing Doubts About Expressivism, 2005 U. Chi. Legal F. 405 (2005)

[To
rehabilitate an] offender so as [is] to make him a socially functional participant in the moral
community. The concern of the rehabilitationist is the moral transformation of the
offender, and the roots of his theory concerning the justifiable goals of the criminal justice system lie deep in a perfectionist theory of legislation. On such a
On a rehabilitation theory, punishment is justified if and only if it accomplishes a metamorphosis in the personality of the

theory, the power of the state is properly directed toward the goal of perfecting persons morally . Perfectionists consider it legitimate for the state to

enact legislation that will make us more virtuous and less vicious by nurturing in us charitable, kind, and courageous dispositions, and
suppressing selfish, cruel, and bigoted dispositions. In the context of criminal law, this general political philosophy inclines theorists to the view
that suffering can be justified if, but only if, it is motivated by the promise of improving the moral character of offenders. It is crucial to be clear

[the rehabilitation of] offenders because it will deter them from

further wrongdoing and so make the rest of us safer, or [and] because it will return them to
the pool of productive, contributing citizens and so increase the wealth and well-being of
all, is not a true rehabilitationist. Such a theorist is a utilitarian who conceives of the rehabilitation
at the start that anyone who seeks to rehabilitate

of offenders as an instrumentally effective means of maximizing social utility overall, but who is not principally interested in the moral welfare of the offender. In contrast, a true rehabilitationist
is someone who takes the rehabilitation of the offender to be an intrinsic good, and who is prepared to sacrifice social utility in order to achieve that end.

Landenberger writes:
The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment Nana A.
Landenberger & Mark W. Lipsey Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies
Correspondence: Mark W. Lipsey, Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies, 1207 18th Ave. South, Nashville, TN 37212 or
mark.lipsey@vanderbilt.edu. Supported by grants from the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH) In press, Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 2005

Several well conducted meta-analyses have identified cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as a

particularly effective intervention for reducing the recidivism of juvenile and adult
offenders. Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, and Yee (2002), for instance, conducted a meta-analysis of 69 research studies covering both
behavioral (e.g., contingency contracting, token economy) and cognitive- behavioral programs. They [The studies] found that the cognitivea 52% decrease in recidivism overall in the treatment group. This impressive effect is not a mathematical

projection beyond what appears in the data. An odds ratio of 2.86 is at the 82nd percentile of the distribution of effects for the 58 studies in this
meta- analysis.
<http://www.wrn.com/2012/10/corrections-study-shows-drop-in-recidivism-rates/>

The Department of Corrections tracked recidivism rates for nearly 125,000 former inmates
between 1990 and 2009. Secretary Gary Hamblin says they focused on offenders landing back in
prison within three years of being released, and found what he describes as a pretty consistent
downward trend [in recidivisim] over the past 20 years. According to the report, the overall
recidivism rate dropped 28.5 percent between 1993 and 2007. During that time frame, it peaked at 45.3
percent in 1993 and then dropped to 32.4 percent in 2007. The study found men were more likely to go back to prison than women, and the

the steady decline is the result of the

numerous resources [The Department of Corrections] DOC has directed toward programs
designed to prepare inmates for to rejoin society after their release. Through offering job
skills courses and housing programs, he says a lot of effort has gone into helping inmates
reenter society.
largest group of recidivists was between the ages of 20 and 24. Hamblin believes

Cullen cites recidivism , or re-arrest rates:

of punishment-oriented interventions.

Indeed, the empirical literature is damning

There is growing evidence that imprisonment

is related to higher levels of recidivism. Data shows that the

national rearrest rate is 63%, although can be as high as 84% for
juveniles, but that 76% of the state prison population has a previous
criminal history of prior convictions.

The data for 1997 shows that almost half of those

with prior convictions are for violent offenses. Importantly, 59% of recidivists have more than two previous
convictions and 43% have more than 3 convictions.

Clearly, the threat of prison as punishment did not work for the
majority of these offenders.
According to Goldsmiths University:
De Bois, 2011. De Bois, Nick. Retribution and Rehabilitation: A Modern Conservative Justice Policy. Dale & Co. 2011.

At the first point of contact we need to focus on effective engagement where problems arise, and this early intervention approach has rightly been
highlighted by Iain Duncan Smith as one that could turn out to be the smartest decision local and national government ever made. In this area,
the organisation Chance UK has been incredibly successful in producing substantial reductions in youth crime through simple and effective

98% of the children

[charged with crimes and undergoing rehabilitation] they worked with showed reductions in
levels of behavioural difficulty, a staggering level of productivity.
mentoring programmes. An independent report by Goldsmiths University into the organisation found that

Reducing recidivism is extremely important. Wilson explains four negative impacts of having
recidivism.
Jane Wilson '07 [Stanford's Strauss Scholar, developing educational programs for inmates in cities across the US.],
Reducing Juvenile Recidivism in the United States, Roosevelt Review. Scribd.

recidivism imposes tremendous public safety costs on

American communities; high recidivism rates indicate additional victimizations (assuming that the crime for
which the juvenile was arrested was in fact committed). Second, increased recidivism results in extremely destructive social costs; increases in
violence, crime, homelessness, family destabilization, and public health risks are all associated with high recidivism rates. Third,
recidivism imposes a considerable financial burden on the U.S. Department of Justice and ,
more generally , on American society; our government spends an annual sixty billion dollars on correctional programs . Fourth, high recidivism
indicates a failure to provide meaningful rehabilitation for inmates reentering the
community; recidivist juveniles lose out on crucial educational, social, and personal developments that can rarely be regained . Additionally, studies show that recurrent
offenses during teenage years can provide a dangerous inculcation leading to adult
criminality. The tragedy of this cycle of criminality cannot be understated.
The effects of recidivism in the United States fall into four general categories

. First,

Also, if a person is committing crimes because of drug dependency, chronic illnesses, or

psychological disorder, rehabilitation provides the greatest likelihood of deterring that person
from committing more crimes in the future.
Contention 2: A policy where retribution is valued over rehabilitation would not be effective.
Subpoint A: Retribution would increase crime.
Empirics demonstrate that retribution loses its deterrent value for habitual offenders.

Hallevy:
[Prof. of Law, Ono Academic College], The Recidivist Wants To Be Punished Punishment as an Incentive to Reoffend, 5 IJPS 120 (2009)

An empirical study carried out on the subject supports this contention. The [a] study, which was
carried out in Britain over the course of six years into the behavior of different categories
of habitual offender, found that those having the most prolific criminal records were least
likely to be deterred by the imposition of extra punishment, regardless of what form that
punishment took.3 8 Thus for example, it was discovered that the percentage of recidivism
amongst first-time adult offenders (those over 21 years of age) who had been given
custodial sentences was 18%. The rate amongst those having one previous conviction
already was 50% and in the case of those with between two and four previous convictions
the rate of recidivism climbed to 72%, then to 88% in respect of those having five previous
convictions. The recidivism rate amongst juvenile offenders (those up to 17 years of age)
who had five previous convictions and were given a custodial sentence was 100%. The study
found a similar picture emerging across all age groups. 39 These empirical and statistical
findings correspond with the forecast made based on the rule of diminishing

Pistole:
John S. Assistant Director of Counterterrorism Division, FBI, October 14th, 2003, Statement For the Record before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security.
http://www.emergencymgt.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/JohnSPistole.pdf

terrorists seek to exploit our freedom to exercise religion to their advantage by using radical forms ofIslam to recruit operatives. Unfortunately

U.S. correctional institutions are a

viable venue for such radicalization and recruitment.[] Recruitment of inmates within the prison system will continue to be a
problem for correctional institutions throughout the country. Inmates are often ostracized, abandoned by, or isolated from
their family and friends, leaving them susceptible to recruitment. Membership in the

various radical groups offer inmates protection, positions of influence and a network they
can correspond with both inside and outside of prison.
The retributive act of sending people to jail allows them to be influenced by other felons and
become even worse criminals when they are released. Also, retribution would cause criminals to
feel angry at the system, giving them incentive to commit even more crimes once they complete
their sentences.
Subpoint B: Retributive practices, specifically incarceration, have adverse mental effects ranging
from mental defection to the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Christina Olvera writes about the medical effects:
Victims of prison rape are inflicted with serious physical and psychological harm. Victims may experience rectal
bleeding, soreness and bruising. In the case of a violent attack this is much worse. Insomnia, nausea, shock,
disbelief, withdrawal, anger, shame, guilt, and humiliation also results from the abuse.
Long term consequences may include post traumatic stress disorder, rape trauma
syndrome, ongoing fear, nightmares, flashbacks, self-hatred, substance abuse, anxiety,
depression and suicide. Olvera, Christina, The Effects Of Prison Rape, 2010, author of dozens of authors of Helium magazines
Olvera 2 furthers:
Prisoner rape spreads diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis A and B, gonorrhea,
chlamydia and syphilis. Prisoners are not the only ones who suffer from the spread of
diseases. Most of these inmates are released and with them comes all the diseases. Some are
released without the needed knowledge, skills or access to resources to treat their conditions
or stop the cycle of transmission. Allowing the spread of diseases among prisoners hurts
everyone inside and out. Olvera, Christina, The Effects Of Prison Rape, 2010, author of dozens of authors of Helium
magazines

Contention 3: The American public believes that rehabilitation should be valued over retribution.
Cullen:
Francis T. Cullen [Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology, University of Cincinnati], Making Rehabilitation Corrections Guiding
Paradigm, Criminology & Public Policy, Vol. 6, No. 4 (2007):717728
Despite the attack on the treatment ideal and the near-hegemony of the punishment paradigm in shaping correctional policy ,

research
over the past three decades has shown consistently that the public supports rehabilitation
(Cullen and Moon, 2002; Cullen et al., 2000). More recent polls confirm that this support remains firm (Cullen
et al., 2007; Cullen, Pealer, et al., 2002; Nagin et al., 2006). In effect, Americans favor a balanced approach, one that exacts a measure of justice,
protects the public against serious offenders, and makes every effort to change offenders while they are within the grasp of the state.
Rehabilitation often is characterized as a liberal idea because it endorses going easy on offenders. But the public recognizes a canard when it
sees one. Here is one liberal idea that citizens embrace because it is eminently rational: Why

would we return any offender

to the community without making a good faith effort to save the person and, in so doing,
reduce the collateral threat to public safety? The failure to do so, Americans recognize,
makes little sense and, in fact, borders on outright irresponsibility.
Meares writes, It goes almost without saying that the legitimacy of the criminal justice
system is critical to the systems [its] proper functioning. We can see this by examining the criminal trial.
We use the criminal trial in order to accurately ascertain whether the accused in fact committed an act deserving of punishment. It is sometimes said that
constitutional criminal procedure guarantees represent a preference for more accuracy in criminal judgments, as rules that tend to favor the defendant are
likely on average to reduce false positives. But, it is also true that this sorting function is not the only, or even the primary, goal of the procedures that

make up a criminal trial. For example, Peter Arenella has noted that criminal procedure can insure that a suspect is treated with dignity and respect in
ways that capture societys normative aspirations embodied in its positive laws, customs, religions, and ideologies and the proper relationship between

Fair process norms are typically promoted as ethical imperatives to be

pursued as goods in and of themselves set apart from their value in reducing outcome error. Importantly,
the individual and the state.

however, even if procedure is disconnected from the objective of accurate sorting, fair process norms still can lead to instrumental benefits. Public

The public is much more likely to support

the criminal justice process and support those officials who run it when the public [they]
believes that the process is run fairly. If the American public does not
perceive its criminal justice system to be fair, negative consequences can
result. Diminished public support for the criminal justice system , taken to the
extreme, can lead to diminished respect for the law and, thereby, less
compliance with the law. Social science researchers have demonstrated that a persons evaluation of whether a criminal trial is
confidence in the criminal justice system is one such obvious benefit.
and participate in

fair does not depend entirely upon the relationship between the procedures that make up the trial and the outcome of the trial

For the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to affirm.

THE US PRISON POPULATION HAS GROWN DRAMATICALLY

D. A. Andrews [Prof. of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa] and James Bonta [Ph.D,
Director, Corrections Research, Public Safety Canada], Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and
Practice, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 16 (2010), No. 1, 3955 Out of step in relation to the
crime rate decreases, the incarceration rate continues to increase in the United States. From 1992 to
2007, the U.S. incarceration rate grew from 505 per 100,000 to an estimated 756 per 100,000 (Walmsley,
2009). One out of 100 adults is behind bars in the
United States with one in 15 African-American men and 1 in 36 Hispanic men in prison (Pew,
2008). Over five million adults are under some form of community supervision (Glaze & Bonczar,
2007). On the youth side of the criminal justice system, nearly 2.2 million juveniles were arrested in 2007
(Puzzanchera, 2009). The United States now has approximately 20% of the worlds prison population
(Walmsley, 2009). Getting tough on crime has become the major criminal justice policy in America.

REHABILITATION PROGRAMS ARE COST EFFECTIVE

Francis T. Cullen [Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology, University of Cincinnati], Its Time
to Reaffirm Rehabilitation, Criminology & Public Policy, 5 (2006): 665672
Second, as Nagin et al. observe, there is also a growing body of evidence showing that
rehabilitation programsincluding the treatment of adjudicated youthful offenders and early
prevention strategies for those yet to enter the systemare cost effective. Computing whether
spending funds on treatment is a wise investment due to the money saved from crimes prevented
is difficult; much depends on the quality of the data and the assumptions that guide the calculus
of what a crime saved is worth (Greenwood, 2006; Welsh, 2003; Welsh et al., 2001). Even so,
the existing analyses suggest that well-designed treatment programs can be defended to policy
makers as saving more than they cost (Aos et al., 2003; Greenwood, 2006; Welsh, 2003