I affirm

Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States

criminal justice system.
Definitions
Ought - used to indicate duty or correctness. (Oxford Dictionaries Online)
Valued - consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high
opinion of. (Oxford Dictionaries Online)
Rehabilitation - Smith, Nick, Encyclopedia of Criminal Justice Punishment intended to
reform a convict so that she can lead a productive life free from crime.
Retributive Justice - a system of criminal justice based on the punishment of offenders
rather than on rehabilitation. (Oxford Dictionaries Online)
Recidivism - the extent to which persons convicted by the criminal justice system reoffend, from the SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service
Provision), NQG, 2005, Report on Government Services 2005, 210
Value: Quality of Life
My value in this debate is quality of life, which has been the goal of humanity for centuries.
Without quality of life, it is nothing more than a survival of the fittest, just like barbaric times
from thousands of years ago. This principal should be applied to offenders as well as their
communities. Lowered recidivism rates and improved communities are important facets in a
high quality of life. This value must apply to both the offender and the victim, not just one or
the other.
Value Criterion: Cost-Benefit Analysis
My value criterion in this debate is cost-benefit analysis. This is the best way to weigh two
different systems of criminal justice because cost-benefit analysis allows the advantages
and disadvantages of the two systems to be weighed. Under this value criterion, the benefits
and harms of each system must be weighed for all individuals, including the offender and
the general public.
Contention 1: Rehabilitative Justice is Good for Offenders and the General Public
First, lets examine the effects of rehabilitative justice. Since our goal provide the highest
quality of life by protecting both offenders as well as the general public, lets use recidivism
rates as a measure of the effectiveness of rehabilitative justice. Low recidivism rates are
good for both offenders and the general public. For offenders, low recidivism rates mean a
greater chance of reentering society and functioning as a normal individual. For the general
public, low recidivism rates mean lower crime rates and less criminals, leading to a safer and
a higher quality of life. In order to show that rehabilitative justice is good, I will show that it
lowers recidivism rates. Studies have shown that various rehabilitative programs, such as
education and drug rehabilitation programs, lower recidivism rates.

Jon Aborn et al (Annie van den Toorn, John Hockin, Scott Jordon, Man Nayvelt, and Michael
Finkelstein) The California Prison and Rehabilitation. Ethics of Development in a Global
Environment. Stanford University 1999
Numerous studies have been published documenting the positive results from
education and drug treatment programs undertaken within the prison system.
With regards to education, it has been shown to be extremely effective in
preventing prisoner release and returns to jail. Wilmington (Ohio) College reports
that recidivism rates for inmates who took degrees through their programs in two
Ohio prisons were 18% versus a state average of 40%.~ A Boston University
program tracked inmates in its program over a 25-year period and found that for
those who earned BU degrees while in prison, recidivism rates dropped to less
than 5 percent, compared with the 65% national rate. Therefore, one may
conclude that the education programs are working - prisoners are taking these
skills into the real world and applying them successfully.
Drug treatment programs have also had profound effects on recidivism rates.
Arizona has been the first state to divert all of is non-violent drug offenders into
probation and treatment instead of prison. Arizona reported that of 2,622 people
on probation diverted into treatment, 77.5% have since tested free of drugs, a
rate that is significantly higher than that for offenders on probation in most other
states. And 77.1 % of drug users on probation, who are expect to help pay for
treatment, made at least one payment.7 This has cut down on the "revolving
door" phenomenon. Prisoners are cleaning up and staying outside of prison post
sentencing.
What this evidence shows is that these types of programs are working. They allow offenders
to understand their wrongdoings while preparing them to lead a normal life; lowering
recidivism rates in the process. Rehabilitative justice protects citizens and offenders because
the offender is ready to reenter the community as a productive member of society, lowering
recidivism rates and stopping a vicious cycle of crime before it can get out of hand. This
upholds my value of quality of life.
Contention 2: Retributive Justice is Bad for Offenders and the General Public
a. Retributive Justice Does Not Lower Recidivism Rates
First, lets examine retributive justice and its impact on recidivism. Lets begin by taking a
look at the retributive prison system. A common myth is that prison is so scary and horrific
that individuals will never want to go back again. However, evidence states the contrary.
Bronsteen, John, Christopher Buccafusco, and Jonathan Masur. "Happiness and
Punishment." University of Chicago Law School. JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING
PAPER NO. 424 (2008). Web. (12-13)
From these studies a pattern of hedonic response to imprisonment emerges. Initial entry into the prison

Within weeks,
however, inmates develop coping mechanisms that enable them to adjust to the
situation and improve their wellbeing. 62 After this initial adjustment period, offenders
maintain relatively constant levels of happiness throughout the remainder of their
environment triggers significant psychological distress and low levels of wellbeing.

terms.63 Thus, the pains of imprisonment64 are felt immediately, with diminishing hedonic penalties over the
remainder of the sentence

This evidence shows that a retributive approach would not work due to the nature of human
psychology. Another reason that retributive justice does not work is the nature of prison
itself.
Imprisonment and Reoffending by Daniel Nagin, Francis Cullen, Cheryl Jonson. University
of Chicago, 2009
The key insight is that regardless of the precise mechanism, prisons are marked by the
presence of cultural values supportive of crime that can be transmitted through
daily interactions. It is thus a social learning environment in which criminal
orientations are potentially reinforced. Consistent with social learning theory (Akers
1998), it can be expected that a custodial sentence will intensify a commitment to a
life in crime.
Due to the nature of prison as well as psychology, offenders never rehabilitate in a system of
retributive justice, which doesnt prepare them for life free of punishment. Meta-analysis has
only proven this truth.
Cullen, 2000. Cullen, Francis. Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and
Prospects. Criminal Justice 2000 Volume 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the
Criminal Justice System. 2000. http://learn.uci.edu/media/SP06/99015/Assess%20Rehab
%20Cullen%2003d.pdf
More recently,

Gendreau, Goggin, and Fulton (2000) conducted a thorough metaanalysis of 88 comparisons of ISP-type programs with control groups that
received lesser or no sanction. Only restitution was associated with a decrease in recidivism (4
percentage points) with a comparison with controls . Two sanctions, ISP and drug testing, had no
effect on recidivism. Scared straight and electronic monitoring produced a 5percentage and 7-percentage point increase in recidivism, respectively.
Subsequently, Gendreau et al. (1999) have expanded the database to include 150
comparisons involving 56,602 offenders. The overall effect size for all types of
intermediate sanctions was found to be 0 percent. Together, these results reveal
that relying on punishment to achieve correctional treatment is unlikely to work
and thus is an imprudent investment of resources.
What this evidence shows is that punishment itself doesnt work. It doesnt contribute to low
recidivism rates, and it certainly doesnt decrease the amount of crime committed over the
long run. Stagnant or increasing crime rates are bad for the community, which does not
uphold my value of quality of life.
b. Retributive Justice is Bad for the Offender
Finally, lets examine the effects of retributive justice on the offender. First, lets take a look
at the average offender.
Rotman, E. (1986). Do Criminal Offenders Have a Constitutional Right to Rehabilitation?
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminality, 77 (4).
The denial of rehabilitation and the consequent lack of concern for the future life of the offender amounts to a

passive and indifferent acceptance of the inevitable deterioration brought about by the institution. Imprisonment
itself jeopardizes other rights different from those forfeited through the commission of a crime and the
consequent criminal punishment. Moreover,

a large majority of inmates are socially

handicapped offenders who

need basic support in the areas of education, job-training and fundamental social
learning. Their social handicap
is considerably aggravated by the stigma of a criminal record, requiring additional
efforts from the social
agencies to support the arduous process of social reintegration.
The average criminal is already handicapped socially. They often lack education, social skills,
and job skills. To send an offender out of prison with none of these is like asking for them to
reoffend. They will have nowhere to turn but a life of crime unless they can be rehabilitated.
A criminal lifestyle is bad for the offender as well as the general public, and my value of
quality of life could be upheld under a system of retributive justice. For this reason as well as
others stated throughout my case, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in todays debate.