GT Prisoners Neg: 58598991.docx Dartmouth 2K9

58598991.
docx Dartmouth 2K9
1
GT PRISONERS NEG
STRATEGY SHEET...............................................................................................................................................3
CROSS-EX QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................................................4
***TOPICALITY***..............................................................................................................................................5
1NC T-Social Services............................................................................................................................................6
2NC T-Social Service..............................................................................................................................................7
1NC T – Remove a Barrier......................................................................................................................................8
***DISAD TURNS THE CASE***.......................................................................................................................9

Disad Turns the Case – War Turns Rape...............................................................................................................10
***RAPE RHETORIC KRITIK***......................................................................................................................11

“A Fate Worse Than Death” K – 1NC..................................................................................................................12
“A Fate Worse Than Death” K – 1NC..................................................................................................................12
“A Fate Worse Than Death” – 1NC.....................................................................................................................13
“A Fate Worse Than Death” – 1NC.....................................................................................................................14
“A Fate Worse Than Death” – 1NC......................................................................................................................15
AT: Perm...............................................................................................................................................................16
Rhetoric Key..........................................................................................................................................................17
Death Rhetoric  Patiarchy..................................................................................................................................18
Patriarchy Impact...................................................................................................................................................19
AT: Your Cards Are in the Context of Death Penalty...........................................................................................20
***CASE FRONTLINES***................................................................................................................................21
1NC Inherency Frontline 1/3.................................................................................................................................22
Ext. New Standards Passed....................................................................................................................................25
Ext. Supreme Court Decisions Solve.....................................................................................................................28
AT: But Parenti Proves Precedent Fails................................................................................................................29
1NC Gender...........................................................................................................................................................30
1NC International Law Frontline 1/2....................................................................................................................31
1NC International Law Frontline 2/2....................................................................................................................32
1NC Solvency Frontline 1/2..................................................................................................................................33
1NC Solvency Frontline 2/2..................................................................................................................................34
***COURTS COUNTERPLAN***.....................................................................................................................35
Courts CP 1NC......................................................................................................................................................36
Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

1
58598991.docx Dartmouth 2K9
***POLITICS LINK***.......................................................................................................................................38
Plan Popular...........................................................................................................................................................39
Plan = Bipartisan....................................................................................................................................................40
Plan = Bipartisan....................................................................................................................................................41
Plan - Bipartisan....................................................................................................................................................42
Plan Unpopular......................................................................................................................................................43
Plan Unpopular......................................................................................................................................................44
Prison Lobbies Key................................................................................................................................................45
Prison Lobbies Key................................................................................................................................................46

2
3
STRATEGY SHEET
The GT Prisons aff makes it easier to sue for rape.
1AC:
The USFG should make rape actionable under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Advantages – Prison rights, prison rape, gender, rape (out of prisons), and international law.
1NC should be:

ASPEC
T – Social Services
T – Removing a Barrier
T – Subsets (not in here)
Courts CP
Rape Rhetoric K
Politics D/A
Case
2NR Options (no particular order, all are good Ts)

1) T (either one)
2) Courts and Politics
3) Politics and Case
4) Kritik
1) Inherency – All their “prison rape now” cards comes from 1999. There has been many supreme court
cases and bills since then (including the new set of standards that passed last year!). Do not be afraid to
go for politics and status quo solves the case.
2) Kritik – Get them to say “but rape is worse than death!” and you’re set (instructions on how to do that
below). If you’re going for this, talk about how the impacts turn the POLICY implications of the case
(rapes become more deadly) and refer to specific lines/rhetoric in the 1AC.
3) Courts – Solves just as well as Congress. They don’t specify what branch they defend so you have to
ask in cross-ex and run ASPEC. **HAVE COURTS-DON’T-LINK-TO-PTX READY**
4) T – if you’re slow, don’t read all the T violations, but you must read ASPEC otherwise they’ll spike the
CP.
5) Politics – if you’re saying the plan is unpopular, refer to the inherency frontline as a reason why
Congress would be pissed if they had to pass ANOTHER prison reform act when they JUST passed one
last year (especially in the midst of the huge healthcare debate). If you’re saying it’s popular, say the
inherency arguments all prove why Congress has empirically been a huge supporter of prison reform.
**THEY DON’T NON-UNIQUE PTX – the reforms were before 09

3

4
5
CROSS-EX QUESTIONS
-Why would rape outweigh a huge nuclear holocaust that kills everyone including prisoners? … So what
would be worse, someone dying, or someone being raped?
(This question sets up the kritik. Act dumb and pretend you’re trying to argue why the disad outweighs
when you’re actually securing the link. “Rape outweighs death” is all you need.)
-Golden talks about CONGRESS amending the PLRA. Do you use Congress as per your only solvency
advoate?
(Better than “which branch of the USFG do you defend”)

5
***TOPICALITY***

6
7
1NC T-Social Services
A. Social services include healthcare, education, food, and transfer payments

Oxford Companion to the Politics of the World 01
(Paul Streiten, “Basic needs”
http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t121.e0065&srn=11&ssid=13009668#FIRSTHIT)[Tanay]
Social services covers the provision of public goods such as health and education, as well as food subsidies.
These raise the earning power of the poor. Transfer payments out of public revenue, charitable donations or gifts by
the family, and payments in kind to temporarily or chronically unemployed (the latter include the handicapped,
disabled, infirm, old, and chronically sick) are necessary to meet the needs of the unemployable.
B. The aff redefines a federal code to include rape.
C. Limits – they justify any case that would amend the law to pre-empt damages. They could overturn
the Hyde amendment, remove the mailing address requirement to vote, overrule the right to bear arms,
or redefine the federal speed limit. Impossible research burdens mean the neg will always be unprepared
– destroys fairness and education.

7
8
2NC T-Social Service
Our interpretation is that social services must be limited to health care, education, food, and transfer
payments, that’s Oxford Companions.
They violate this – including rape in an Act does not increase any of these social services.
We allow for good limits. Topical cases include:

-Healthcare to immigrants and detention centers
-Head start education
-Food stamps
-Welfare
-Social security
-Housing subsidies
They allow for ANY case that EDITS THE LAW for benefits. This kills limits because they allow affs to:
-Overturn the Hyde amendment
-Lower the federal poverty line
-Remove marital status requirement from TANF
-Allow homeless people to vote
-Restrict use of guns
-Lower the speed limit
Limits are the biggest impact -

They make the negative research burden impossible because the aff could reform any section of the law.
That’s bad for debate:
1) Fairness – the neg will never be sufficiently prepared for the debate and the aff will always win
because they’ll have more specific evidence.
2) Education – the neg won’t be able to research the topic in depth and lose topic specific education
because we’ll have to rely on generics.
Don’t pity them – the topical version of their plan would be to fully fund prison health care reform.

8
9
1NC T – Remove a Barrier
A. Increase is direct growth, not removing a barrier

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 96
Increase: 1)to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment 2)to become greater, as in
number, size, strength, or quality 3)to multiply by propagation 4)growth or augmentation in size,
strength, quality 5)the act or process of increasing
B. The aff doesn’t directly increase a social service – it just removes a barrier
C. Limits – They could remove any barrier without increasing the social service. They justify cases that
remove citizenship requirements, remove considerations for marriage status for TANF, increase
railroads for transportation, allow unemployed people to take the bus for free, or enforce anti-
discrimination laws in employment. That destroys fair research burden and makes it impossible for the
neg to be prepared – destroys fairness and education.

9
10
***DISAD TURNS THE CASE***

10
11
Disad Turns the Case – War Turns Rape
War facilitates the rape of women to force unwanted pregnancies and to further “ethnic cleansing”
Robson 93
(Robson, has a Master's degree in African Literature and is an award winning writer, 06-93
http://www.newint.org/issue244/rape.htm)
No-one will ever know the exact number of women and girls raped during the conflict in former
Yugoslavia. But Herak’s accounts of his forced participation in rapes of Bosnian Muslim women –
his commander had told him it was ‘good for morale’ – accord with evidence recounted to human-
rights observers and journalists throughout the region. Though all figures must be treated with
caution in a war so plagued by propaganda, these witnesses tell of the organized and systematic rape
of at least 20,000 women and girls by the Serbian military and the murder of many of the victims.
Muslim and Croatian – as well as some Serbian – women are being raped in their homes, in schools,
police stations and camps all over the country. The sexual abuse of women in war is nothing new.
Rape has long been tolerated as one of the spoils of war, an inevitable feature of military conflict
like pillage and looting. What is new about the situation in Bosnia is the attention it is receiving –
and the recognition that it is being used as a deliberate military tactic to speed up the process of
‘ethnic cleansing’. According to a recent report by European Community investigators, rapes are
being committed in ‘particularly sadistic ways to inflict maximum humiliation on victims, their
families, and on the whole community’.1 In many cases the intention is ‘deliberately to make
women pregnant and to detain them until pregnancy is far enough advanced to make termination
impossible’. Women and girls aged anything between 6 and 70 are being held in camps throughout
the country and raped repeatedly by gangs of soldiers. Often brothers or fathers of these women are
forced to rape them as well. If they refuse, they are killed.

11
12
***RAPE RHETORIC KRITIK***

12
13
“A Fate Worse Than Death” K – 1NC
A. The Living-Dead
The rhetoric of “rape being worse than death” is embedded in patriarchy – a womyn’s chastity and
virginity define her identity – the notion that she is better off dead and recovery is useless reinforce
Victorian sexual norms
Yung, Assistant Professor at John Marshall Law School, B.A. U of Iowa, J.D. U of Virginia School of Law, 04
- He teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, and a Sex Crimes seminar
Corey Rayburn yung, Fall 2004, St. John’s Law Review, “Better Dead than R(ap)ed?: The Patriarchal Rhetoric
Driving Capital Rape Statues,” Vol. 78, Issue 4
Why then, against what these advocates "know," do they invoke rhetoric that makes death a preferred
option for those who have been raped? The most pernicious and insidious message conveyed by
comparisons to death is that those who have been raped have no reason to live. If it is true that those
who have had to experience the ordeal of being raped have suffered a "fate worse than death" that will
haunt them for the rest of their lives, then what reason do they have to continue living? If death is truly
the lesser of two evils, why would someone hesitate to embrace it as an escape from the horrific
experience of rape? Such rational-choice type evaluation may seem out of place in discussing the
impact of rape and the decision to commit suicide, but given that those invoking it are wedded to
deterrence theories that rely on the same premises, it seems a horrific oversight not to consider the
signals sent to womyn and children. This is not to say that a person who has been raped would decide
to commit suicide because a Louisiana judge said that being raped is worse than death. Rather, the
rhetoric comparing death to rape contributes to a cultural norm built upon Victorian artifacts
that elevates womyn's chastity to the very essence of their identity. Arguing that a person would
commit suicide based on the words of policymakers is the type of strawperson that those espousing
executions as a solution would surely invoke, but it misses the structure at play in these cases. When
death becomes a lesser fate than being raped, patriarchal norms of childhood "innocence" and womyn's
virginity become the crucial elements of personhood. Attempts to recover from rape become fruitless
before they start because those who have been raped are already the "living dead." The experience of
being alive and dead after being raped is a common phenomenon for womyn in America and around
the world. "Women disassociate themselves from rape because the vast majority of people still believe
that a woman who has been raped is filthy, better off dead, irrational, or got what she was looking
for."293 Outside of the United States, in communities where rape is seen as a fate worse than death,
people who have been raped often become social outcasts.294 Rape is a badge of shame for these
womyn as no one in society wants to deal with the "living dead."295 When policymakers and judges in
America use comparisons to death to justify their decisions, cultural norms that isolate womyn in other
countries gain a foothold here. Such a risk should not be taken lightly as a revival of Victorian sexual
norms and conceptions regarding rape would represent a grave threat to American womyn and
children.

13
14
“A Fate Worse Than Death” – 1NC
B. Rhetoric of Death
This notion encourages womyn to literally fight for their deaths – rape is no longer something to prevent
– womyn are told to decrease their chances of surviving by any means possible. Survivors are labeled as
cowards while the judicial system is modeled off that stigma – this turns solvency for prevention or
conviction.
A second "rational" conclusion to the belief that rape is worse than death is that "any decent woman
should resist to her last breath."299 If you are being raped and you recognize death as better than
experiencing rape, you have no option but to fight even if it spurs a violent reaction from the rapist.
For some time, it has been conventional wisdom that fighting back is a mistake for womyn because it
increases their risk of death.300 New studies in America have cast doubt on that piece of advice, as
fighting back has often allowed womyn to escape their attackers with only a limited increase in
retaliation.301 However, it remains clear, even with the new studies, that in cases where the rapist is a
stranger, fighting back significantly increases the risk of death and severe injury to womyn.302 In
instances where the perpetrator is unknown to the person being attacked and violated, the rhetoric of
death tells womyn to engage in conduct that is detrimental to their chances of surviving. Just as
saying that rape is worse than death encourages suicide by those who have lived through it, it also
demands that womyn die in the process of the rape itself. Womyn and children are told to reenact the
painful conclusion to St. Maria Goretti's life not for piety's sake, but for their own. There is another,
added effect to this rhetorical element. Womyn who ignore the social message to avoid being raped at
all costs and who decide not to fight back with all their might suffer the pain of guilt for not trying
harder.303 Womyn who, for whatever reason, do not fight back to the point of being knocked
unconscious are viewed as "cowards" under the rubric of death rhetoric. Again, womyn are blamed for
the crimes committed against them. The old mantra that it is her fault for not fighting him off has been
revived by activist attempts to raise awareness about rape.304 Thus, the traditional legal conception of
rape typified in Mills v. United States*05 has returned as womyn are forced to put their lives in
jeopardy to prove they were actually raped.306 Given that America continues to enforce rape statutes
that put womyn on the defensive in proving non-consent, rhetoric that furthers the survivor's guilt can
be devastating. Further, the effect of adding shame and guilt to womyn who have been raped is
contrary to the stated goals of applying the death penalty for rape.307 Many womyn and children who
have been raped do not report the attacks and try to hide evidence of the horrific events out of guilt.308
Adding a "survivor's" complex on top of the existing societal pressure can only serve to exacerbate the
reluctance to report. Given systemic underreporting now,309 creating further disincentives to report
ensures that a death penalty regime will only decrease any deterrent effect.310 And when the jury
expects someone who has been raped to fight until their last breath, they are not likely to find the
defendant guilty.311 The net result is that whatever modicum of deterrence is achieved by imposing
capital punishment is more than offset by the decreased probability of being caught and convicted.

14
15
This creates a dangerous reciprocity in the judicial system – death appears to be the only punishment for
rape. That encourages rapist to murder their victims in a low risk, high reward scenario. All their rape
impacts are magnified post plan.
It may seem odd to consider the messages of a statute upon would-be rapists, but the consideration is
not fundamentally different from standard deterrence theory. In the case of applying the death penalty,
a policymaker hopes the ultimate penalty, death, would create a high disincentive toward committing
rape even when the probability of being punished is low.327 Such an optimistic view misses the other
incentives created by a system that treats murder and rape the same in regards to punishment. The
Louisiana statute, and others like it, creates powerful motives for an increase in violent crime, not a
decrease. When death is the penalty for rape and murder, a rapist has an increased incentive to kill the
person he has raped. Under a statutory system where the death penalty is applied to the aggravated rape
of a child, the rapist has every incentive to kill the child victim because the child is likely to be the only
witness.328 Similarly, most rapes of adult womyn are prosecuted with the person raped being the key
witness against the rapist.329 If murder does not incur additional punishment, then the motivation to
kill the primary witness to the crime is strong. The notion of a "freebie" in crimes is not unique to the
crime of rape. Similar debates were had for statutes that applied capital punishment to the crime of
kidnapping.330 In that context, the application of the death penalty was viewed as an "invitation to the
criminal to kill the victim."331 The pervasive view regarding capital punishment and kidnapping thus
turned to disfavoring death as a penalty.332 A similar effect should dissuade those who seek to execute
convicted rapists. Kidnapping does not have the same social resonance as rape, but the incentives
created by applying the death penalty in either case are remarkably similar. Both are crimes with
generally only one witness that have a low probability of successful prosecution when the person
kidnapped or raped is also murdered.333 The risk of a rapist taking a "freebie" is especially high when
the person being attacked is a minor. Sexual abuse cases are already among the most difficult for
prosecutors to try.334 The "[c]hild victims are usually the key witnesses . . . [and] their testimony is
likely to be indispensable to the conviction of the person who committed the crime."335 Given that the
rapist of a child does not incur an extra penalty when he or she is already eligible for execution, the
incentive to kill the sole witness to the crime is a low risk, high reward scenario. This equation is
fundamentally depraved, but it is the notion that underlies deterrence. That is, a would-be criminal
assesses consequences and risk versus "reward" before engaging in criminal behavior.336 Thus,
whatever deterrent effect the death penalty would have for would-be rapists, it would be more than
offset by the number of murdered children that would result from the incentive to kill the only witness.
Cross apply 1AC Tickner – Patriarchy is a model for all forms of domination and exploitation.
Overcoming gender inequalities is key to averting global extinction.

15
16
C. Reject the 1AC’s rape rhetoric.
Language permeates all layers of society – before policy debate can continue, we must reexamine the
linguistic choices policymakers choose to use. Failure to examine language as a prior question spillsover
and makes all our impacts inevitable.
The language we use to describe rape and its consequences in a large way dictates our understanding
of the experience. In America, "rape" is a word with incredible rhetorical force and is legally and
linguistically differentiated from, among other terms, "sexual assault," "lewd conduct," and
"inappropriate behavior."218 The United States is not unusual in this regard since calling a crime
"rape" has a powerful and unique force in cultures throughout the world.219 It should not be
surprising, then, that the rhetoric in America surrounding rape is often turbocharged with emotion and
over-determined in meaning. Further, language is what mediates our understanding of rape and
sexual assault in a courtroom setting. Because oral testimony is the only means for a jury to understand
the crime of rape during a trial, language plays a pivotal role.220 A jury's impression of the case is
often shaped and normalized by cultural understandings of the language surrounding rape.221 As a
result, in order to shape the underlying linguistic structure of rape, politically interested parties have
used an array of terms and phrases to quantify the harm done by rape and to label those who have
endured the experience.222 When legislatures debate rape policy in the United States, a variety of
linguistic choices are made by policymakers and, subsequently, by the courts when interpreting the
resultant laws. Media accounts report these government happenings with linguistic moves of their own.
Academic and scholarly opinion often reflects on the statutory outcomes of these hearings and
accounts and add another layer to the rape rhetoric. Public reaction to the words of the media and
congresspersons form another level of discourse. Behind all these rhetorical twists and turns stands a
patriarchal American culture that informs language and shapes attitudes regarding rape.223

16
17
AT: Perm
1. Back pedaling fails – their dishonest attempt to rephrase what they mean doesn’t resolve the suffering
behind their rhetoric.
In response to the above contention, one could argue that those invoking comparisons to death are only
speaking of the experience itself, but not the aftereffects. That is, womyn are not being told that there
is no reason to continue to live, but instead that they have experienced a "living death" and can now
recover from that trauma. While there may be some merit to this interpretation of rape/death rhetoric, it
is not supported by those who are invoking these Victorian bromides in today's political debates. In
fact, supporters of the death penalty belabor the notion that rape devastates the rest of a person's life,
and they go so far as to argue that the effects extend into future generations.296 Some even cite suicide
statistics297 to justify heavy punishment with no regard to the fact that their rhetoric makes suicide a
preferable option. Attempting to backpedal after the fact seems disingenuous . Further, what
judges, commentators, and policymakers may intend is hardly the issue when the effects of their
rhetoric become reality for womyn and children in America.
2. Severance – they sever out of one of the most dominating discourses they made in the 1AC. That
makes them a moving target because they could spike our links – kills fairness.

17
18
Rhetoric Key
Failure to examine rhetoric makes suffering inevitable – the legal system is uniquely affected by our
linguistic choices
That the rhetoric underlying policy shapes culture and creates norms is not a new idea. The text,
subtext, and context all control the interpretation and meaning of statutes, court decisions, and
administrative actions.282 In the legal setting, this is most obvious when a court looks to legislative
intent behind a bill or tries to determine the definition of a word in a contract. The imprecision and
power of language is the basis for a great many lawsuits. In a broader cultural context, rhetorical
choices can have a more profound, yet subtle effect. Often racist, sexist, colonial, or heterosexist
cultural artifacts or apocrypha find a way to resurface through linguistic choices and devices deployed
in an entirely modern setting.283 It is absolutely critical from a feminist perspective that the text and
subtext of these loaded messages be unpacked and examined.284 When the death penalty is applied for
the crime of rape, the justifications and intent behind that decision serve to alter not just court
interpretations, but also societal understanding about child molestation and rape. The messages
conveyed by laws like those adopted in Louisiana are mixed, but the negative signals implied with the
rhetoric and statutes used are potentially very destructive for womyn, children, and society as a whole.
The underlying cultural norms and linguistic systems shape the preconceptions of potential juries in
criminal rape trials. The previous section identified the core rhetorical device being used to shape
debates about capital child rape statutes. Now, we turn to the effects of this rhetoric and the policies
themselves.
Discourse is a pre-requisite – not examining it reinforces rape victims’ suffering

Rayburn, Assistant Professor at John Marshall Law School, B.A. U of Iowa, J.D. U of Virginia School of Law,
04
Corey Rayburn, Fall 2004, St. John’s Law Review, “Better Dead than R(ap)ed?: The Patriarchal Rhetoric
It is amazing that the discussions of these new capital child rape statutes do not thoroughly address the
effects that these policies will have on children.285 It is taken for granted that "bringing justice" to
child rapists will be better for the children who are targets of molesters.286 Similarly, debates about
capital punishment for the rape of an adult have rarely considered the consequences for womyn. Given
this absence of substantive discussion concerning the group these statutes are designed to protect, it
should be expected that policymakers do not even begin to consider the effects of their rhetoric on
womyn and children. Nonetheless, the language judges, legislators, and commentators have used in the
name of protecting womyn and children from rape risks an array of unintended consequences for those
being "protected."

18
19
Death Rhetoric  Patiarchy
Depicting rape as a fate worse than death ultimately degrades and blocks any chance for a meaningful
life
Even beyond the implicit rational choice to commit suicide underlying rape/death rhetoric, there is an
explicit devaluing of womyn's lives in arguing that rape is worse than death. As someone who was
raped explained: [T]o concur with the view that rape is the single worst thing that can happen to a
woman is to do disservice to women. . . . [I]t raises the status of the penis to an unproductive level. It is
to say that all of women's powers, all that we can stand in the face of pain and hardship, are reduced to
naught because we will fall to pieces should an unwelcome lump of male flesh be forced upon us.
Victims all.298 Giving a penis-with-intent the ability to permanently destroy any person it touches
is to deny any chance for recovery and a meaningful life. None of this is to blame those who do not
recover, but rhetoric that traps womyn and children into a corner of isolation and reliving agony should
not be supported. That rape is a horror that most of us cannot comprehend is not a reason to inflict our
inherent ignorance upon those who have already suffered. Using someone else's suffering for political
gain is sad, but probably inevitable. Using the suffering and then framing it in a way that causes people
to re-experience it and ultimately question their reason for living is horrific.
All gender impacts are inevitable in a world of the plan

Nonetheless, it is important to move beyond simple policy opposition on this issue. There is a new, but
very old, rhetoric buttressing proponents of these death penalty statutes. As long as populations and
politicians can make the appeal that rape is an evil worse than death, they can push these laws with a
load of Victorian, patriarchal baggage attached. Womyn and children become objects to be owned and
controlled and the consequences of the rhetoric can be devastating on their lives. As long as womyn
are told that they would be better off dead than raped, we will continue to read stories of womyn
emulating Maria Goretti and dying as a consequence. Children will continue to feel that their
meaningful life is over and suicides and trauma will become more common. Womyn and children will
ultimately bear the insidious consequences of linguistic choices shaped by a patriarchal culture.

19
20
Patriarchy Impact
Addressing gender concerns prevents the root causes of extinction and oppression.
V. Spike Peterson, Professor, Department of Political Science at the University of Arizona and Anne Sisson
Runyan, Head and Associate Professor, Women's Studies at the University of Cincinnati, 1999, “Global
Gender Issues,” p14-15
Finally, gender-sensitive studies improve our understanding of global crises, their interactions, and the
possibilities of moving beyond them. These include crises of political legitimacy and security as states
are increasingly unable to protect their citizens against economic, epidemic, nuclear, or ecological
threats; crises of maldevelopment as the dynamics of our global economic system enrich a few and
impoverish most; and crises of environmental degradation as the exploitation of natural resources
continues in unsustainable fashion. These global crises cannot be understood or addressed without
acknowledging the structural inequalities of the current world system, inequalities that extend well
beyond gender issues: They are embodied in interacting hierarchies of race, class, ethnicity,
nationality, sexual orientation, physical ability, age, and religious identification. In this text, we focus
on how the structural inequalities of gender work in the world: how the structural inequalities of
gender work in the world: how the hierarchical dichotomy of masculinity-femininity is
institutionalized, legitimated, and reproduced, and how these processes differentially affect men's and
women's lives. We also begin to see how gender hierarchy interacts with other structural inequalities.
The dichotomy of masculinity and femininity is not separate from racism, classism, ageism,
nationalism, and so on. Rather, gender both structures and is structured by these hierarchies to render
complex social identities, locations, responsibilities, and social practices. Gender shapes, and is shaped
by, all of us. We daily reproduce its dynamics — and suffer its costs — in multiple ways. By learning
how gender works, we learn a great deal about intersecting structures of inequality and how they are
intentionally and unintentionally reproduced. We can then use this knowledge in our struggles to
transform global gender inequality by also transforming other oppressive hierarchies at work in the
world.

20
21
AT: Your Cards Are in the Context of Death Penalty
Equating death to rape creates retribution in punishment

The results of this subtextual message are twofold. First, it makes the "worse than death" rhetoric
meaningful, but also partially irrelevant. The fact that policymakers create an equation where rape is
worse than death is probably an inevitable premise in the decision to execute rapists. That the words
are verbalized in a way that resuscitates Victorian notions of personhood is unfortunate, but even
absent such an explicit message, the application of the death penalty by itself already creates the same
idea on an implicit level. Second, the rhetoric becomes heavily bound to the substantive aspects of the
punishment. As the dissent pointed out in Gregg v. Georgia?54 a punishment is excessive if it does not
further the goals of retribution or deterrence.355 The deterrence argument in any death penalty debate
is always troublesome and becomes a battle of statistics and studies that cannot possibly control for all
relevant variables. As a result, retribution becomes an essential justification for the deployment of any
capital punishment regime.356 Since the equivocation with death is the basic relay for justifying state
executions, words like "rape is a fate worse than death" are an inevitability.

21
22
***CASE FRONTLINES***

22
23
1NC Inherency Frontline 1/3
1. New rape standards to be implemented now – none of their evidence assumes this
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, 08
(National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, May 5 08, “Bipartisan Prison Rape Commission Releases
Draft Standards for Helping Corrections facilities Achieve Zero-Tolerance,”
http://www.nprec.us/UpcomingEvents/5.5.08.PR.PublicCommentPeriod.pdf)
Washington, DC – The bipartisan National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (“the Commission”)
today released the first set of draft standards for the reduction of prison rape and launched a public
comment period seeking input from corrections leaders and staff, law enforcement, health and public
health professionals, prisoners and detainees, and the interested public. Recognizing that abuse
should not be part of any prison sentence, the Commission developed the draft standards as a step
towards final recommended standards required by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 to help
agencies in their daytoday work to achieve zerotolerance of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse in U.S.
corrections facilities violates basic human rights of incarcerated men and women, their chances of
successful reentry into the community and the government’s obligation to provide safe and humane
conditions. According to a 2007 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report, 4.5 percent of inmates
surveyed reported an incident of sexual victimization, either inmate on inmate or staff on inmate, in the
preceding year. Given the current U.S. prison population, that statistic suggests that more than 70,000
prisoners were victims of sexual violence in one year alone. “The Commission has worked hard to
prepare these draft standards, with the help of hundreds of dedicated experts and stakeholders,” said
Judge Reggie B. Walton, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia and chairman of the
Commission. “The final standards will have a significant impact on the safety of facilities across the
nation, so we encourage feedback during this public comment period that will help us make the
standards as strong and effective as possible.” The Commission’s draft standards for Adult Prisons,
Jails, and Facilities Holding Immigration Detainees were made available today, with a 60 day public
comment period from May 5 to July 7. Additional draft standards concerning Lockups, Juvenile
Facilities, and Community Corrections Facilities will be released in June with a separate public
comment period. Pursuant to the Commission’s congressional mandate, the standards relate to a range
of issues relevant to addressing the problem of prison rape, including training, inmate classification,
reporting of incidents, investigation and resolution of complaints, preservation of evidence, medical
and mental health care for victims, and data collection. “Through what has been a long and thorough
process, we’ve sought to identify and evaluate the best strategies for preventing sexual abuse in
confinement settings and for improving response efforts,” said John A. Kaneb, Chairman of the Board
of Directors of HP Hood LLC and Vicechairman of the Commission. “This public comment period
will assist us as we further refine those promising strategies.” “With millions incarcerated and
hundreds of thousands of men and women released to their communities each year, this is an issue that
affects us all." said Commissioner Pat Nolan, President of Justice Fellowship, the public policy arm of
Prison Fellowship Ministries. "These standards will hold officials accountable for stopping prison rape.
And that's a change that's long overdue.” Commissioner Jamie Fellner, an attorney and Senior Counsel
of the United States Program of

23
24
Human Rights Watch, agreed. “Our charge is to develop zero tolerance national standards on how to
detect, prevent, and punish acts of sexual violence behind bars,” she said. “Ultimately, these standards
will make America’s correctional facilities not only safer for inmates but for staff as well.” Since its
creation by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the Commission has held numerous public and
private meetings and sought the views of a broad range of sources, including corrections administrators
and staff, law enforcement, medical providers and experts, prison rape survivors and their families,
advocates, academics, and the currently incarcerated. After the public comment periods, the
Commission will review the feedback and determine how best to incorporate it into the final standards.
These standards will be presented to the President, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney General, along
with the Commission’s final report and recommendations on how to make ending sexual assault a top
priority in every correctional and detention facility. Within a year, the Attorney General will use the
report and recommended standards as a basis for the promulgation of national standards to
establish zerotolerance of sexual abuse in confinement facilities.
2. Prisoners can sue for rape now – 1AC Golden says there just needs to be proof of physical injury which
a majority of rapes would lave
3. The PREA constitutes indifference to prison rape as unconstitutional – postdates their 1AC ev
Jenness PhD in and Professor of Sociology and Criminology 06
(Valerie Jenness, dept Criminology, Law & Society, Dept. of Sociology, UCLA, November 2006, “The Passage
of the Prison Rape Elimination act: An analysis of the reconfiguarition of Sexual Ciizenship for prisoners,”
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/6/0/1/p96011_index.html)
The scourge of prison sexual assault was recognized early in the history of U.S. corrections when
the Reverend Louis Dwight of the Boston Prison Discipline Society condemned this “dreadful
degradation” in 1826. Fast forward to the modern era. Shortly after the turn of the twentieth
century, in 2003, President Bush affirmed bipartisan congressional efforts to define prison rape as a
national social problem worthy of immediate legislative action and sizeable federal funding when
he signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). 2 During the 177 years that separate
Reverend Dwight’s proclamation and the passage of PREA, prison rape has been rendered
increasingly visible as a pressing issue for corrections officials and lawmakers, redefined as a civil
rights violation for inmates and wards, taken up by the courts as a form of “cruel and unusual
punishment,” and politicized as an issue that inextricably intersects with faith-based initiatives,
human rights, public health, and public safety. Our point of departure is the passage of the Prison
Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which was signed into law on September 4, 2003 by the President
of the United States, George W. Bush. The PREA has many objectives, but the overall purpose of
the PREA is “to provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal,
State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations, and funding
to protect individuals from prison rape” (Public Law 108-79, page 117). 3 In the preceding two
months the Act passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously and
with surprisingly little discussion and no contestation. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-
Massachusetts), one of the primary architects of what was commonly referred to as the “Kennedy-

24
25
Sessions-Wolf-Scott bill,” acknowledged the uncharacteristic bipartisan support that enabled its
swift passage. The swift and virtually uncontested passage of the PREA was surprising for a
number of reasons. First, it is a rare event when the U.S. Congress passes legislation swiftly.
Second, this piece of legislation required Congress to appropriate over 60 million dollars in federal
expenditures at a time when “the war effort” and “tax breaks” were already straining the federal
budget. Third, the PREA does not criminalize behavior anew nor does it provide a new “cause of
action” for inmates if and when prison rape occurs. Almost a decade before the passage of PREA,
in Farmer v. Brennen (1994) the U.S. Supreme Court
found that “deliberate indifference” to prison rape by prison officials constituted “cruel and unusual
punishment.” Fourth, and perhaps most interestingly, the PREA came into being at a moment in
history when the
popular mood is at best indifferent and at worst unreservedly punitive toward the over 2.2 million
people incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
4. Supreme Court solves their impacts – Farmer decision makes all prisoners protected from rape
Rifkin, Staff Attorney at the national Prison Project, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, B.A.
Hunter College, J.D. Columbia University, 95
Marjorie Rifkin, Winter 1995, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, “Farmer V. Brennan: spotlight on an
obvious risk of rape in a hidden world,” pg. 5
Underlying the Farmer concept of deliberate indifference is the principle that under the Eighth
Amendment, prison officials are obligated to protect prisoners from harm based upon the
recognition that (h)aving incarcerated the individuals, stripped them of all means of self- protection,
and foreclosed access to private aid, the state is constitutionally required to provide prisoners with
some protection from the dangers to which they are exposed. [FN64] As the Farmer Court further
pointed out, "the government and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course."
[FN65] The duty to protect prisoners is the first
pronouncement of the newly- configured Supreme Court with Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter
and Thomas. Noteworthy for its symbolic value in jurisprudential and societal terms, this
perspective may also signal the Court's rulings in *287 future prisoner cases. Contrary to the
Seventh Circuit's reasoning, [FN66] the duty to provide reasonable safety and to protect prisoners
from harm places the burden on prison officials, rather than prisoner- victims, to take steps to avert
violence. This has significant bearing on the actual knowledge standard adopted by the Court,
because officials' inaction in the face of inferential evidence of knowledge may result in a finding of
deliberate indifference. Overall, the Farmer decision is accurately summarized by Justice
Blackmun's statement in his concurring opinion that the Farmer decision "creates no new obstacles
for prison inmates to overcome, and it sends a clear message to prison officials that their
affirmative duty under the Constitution to provide for the safety of inmates is not to be taken
lightly." [FN67]

25
26
Ext. New Standards Passed
Standards passed – they do the plan and more

ACLU, 6/23
(American Civil Liberties Union, “Commission finds federal law denies prison rape victims access to courts”,
6/23/09 http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/39954prs20090623.html)
WASHINGTON – The bipartisan National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC)

released a report today finding that a law intended to reduce frivolous lawsuits by prisoners denies
victims of prison rape and other abuse access to the federal courts. The report proposes national
standards to eliminate prison rape and calls on Congress to reform key provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), passed in 1996. In its report, the commission also recommends
reduction in prison overcrowding; improved training for prison and jail employees for better
detection of sexual assault; improved classification of vulnerable prisoners to protect them from
abuse; and better psychological and medical treatment for sexual abuse victims.
"We have a deeply ingrained culture in too many detention facilities of tolerating prison rape," said
Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project, who presented
testimony before the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission and was a member of the
NPREC Standards Development Committee. "Every day, vulnerable prisoners are raped, beaten,
bought and sold as sex slaves. Prison officials too often avert their eyes or report incidents of
coerced sex as consensual. Meanwhile, prisoners pay for protection in sex, money, or services to
avoid gang rape and prostitution. We have played a game of willing disbelief long enough. The
standards the Commission has issued today are a major milestone in ending this shameful era. The
next step is for Congress and Attorney General Eric Holder to fully implement these standards."

26
27
New prison rape standards solve 100% of plan and alternate causalities
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, 6/23
(National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, 6/23/09, “Executive Summary,”
http://nprec.us/publication/report/executive_summary.php)
Many victims cannot safely and easily report

sexual abuse, and those who speak out often do so to no avail. Reporting procedures must be improved
to instill confidence and protect individuals from retaliation without relying on isolation. Investigations
must be thorough and competent. Perpetrators must be held accountable through administrative
sanctions and criminal prosecution. Even when prisoners are willing to report abuse, their accounts are
not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate officials within the facility. “When I
told one of the guards I trusted how tired I was of putting up with abuse [by other youth in a Hawaii
facility], he told me to just ignore it,” Cyryna Pasion told the Commission. According to a 2007 survey
of youth in custody by the Texas State Auditor’s Office, 65 percent of juveniles surveyed thought the
grievance system did not work. Changing that dynamic begins by providing easy ways for individuals
to report sexual abuse they have experienced or know about, backed up by clear policies requiring staff
and administrators to act on every allegation. Although some correctional systems and individual
facilities have made great strides in this area in recent years, the Commission’s standards guarantee
that all prisoners can easily report abuse, that staff are required to report abuse, and that reports are
taken seriously in every facility across the country. A serious response to every report of sexual abuse
is also the best way to handle any false allegations. Victims and witnesses often are bullied into
silence and harmed if they speak out. In a letter to the advocacy organization Just Detention
International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat she received from the male officer who was
abusing her: “Remember if you tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the
rest of your life.” Efforts to promote reporting must be accompanied by policies and protocols to
protect victims and witnesses from retaliation. And because some incarcerated individuals will never
be comfortable reporting abuse internally, facilities must give prisoners the option of speaking
confidentially with a crisis center or other outside agency. Facilities have a duty to thoroughly
investigate every allegation of sexual abuse without delay and to completion, regardless of whether or
not the alleged victim cooperates with investigators. Six years after the passage of PREA, many
statewide correctional systems and individual facilities now have policies, protocols, and trained staff
in place to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. Yet there are still facilities—particularly those that
confine juveniles, those under the umbrella of community corrections, and smaller
jails—that lag behind in this crucial area. The Commission’s standard
establishing the duty to investigate is followed by a detailed standard to ensure the quality of
investigations. Unless investigations produce compelling evidence, corrections administrators cannot
impose discipline, prosecutors will not indict, and juries will not convict abusers. In particular, when
the sexual abuse has occurred recently and the allegation is rape, facilities must offer female and male
victims a forensic exam by a specially trained professional. An evaluation of sexual assault nurse
examiner (SANE) programs published in 2003 by the National Institute of Justice found that they
improve the quality of forensic evidence and increase the ability of law enforcement to collect
information, file charges, and prosecute and convict perpetrators while also providing better
emergency health care. Correctional facilities must also implement a protocol that dictates how to
collect, maintain, and analyze physical evidence and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic

27
28
examiner and other
responders—drawing on “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations,
Adults/Adolescents” created by the Department of Justice in 2004 to improve investigations of sexual
abuse in the community. To facilitate the implementation of this standard, the Commission
recommends that the Department of Justice adapt the protocol specifically for use in correctional
facilities nationwide. The work of investigating sexual abuse in a correctional environment is
complex, requiring skill and sensitivity. According to a report published in 2007 by
the National Institute of Corrections, many sexual abuse investigators are so unfamiliar with the
dynamics inside a correctional facility that they cannot operate effectively. Because the deficits in
some jurisdictions are so great, the Commission’s standard in this area requires facilities to ensure that
investigators are trained in up-to-date approaches and specifies certain minimum training requirements.
And whenever correctional agencies outsource investigations to local law enforcement agencies, they
must attempt to forge a memorandum of understanding with the agency specifying its role and
responsibilities. Investigators do not work alone; any report of sexual abuse in a correctional facility
must also trigger an immediate response from security staff; forensic, medical, and mental health care
practitioners; and the head of the facility. To meet the needs of victims while conducting a thorough
investigation, these professionals must coordinate their efforts. No national data have been collected on
how often correctional facilities investigate reported abuses, and there is no body of research
describing the quality of those investigations. But correctional facilities substantiate allegations of
sexual abuse at very low rates. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, facilities substantiated just
17 percent of all allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment investigated in 2006. In 29
percent of the alleged incidents, investigators concluded that sexual abuse did not occur. But in the
majority of allegations (55 percent) investigators could not determine whether or not the abuse
occurred. Substantiation rates in some states are considerably lower than the rate nationally. Standards
that mandate investigations and improve their quality should increase the proportion of allegations in
which the finding is definitive and perpetrators can be held accountable. Despite that fact that most
incidents of sexual abuse constitute a crime in all 50 States and under Federal law, very few
perpetrators of sexual abuse in correctional settings are prosecuted. Only a fraction of cases are
referred to prosecutors, and the Commission repeatedly heard testimony that prosecutors decline most
of these cases. Undoubtedly, some investigations do not produce evidence capable of supporting a
successful prosecution. But other dynamics may be at play: some prosecutors may not view
incarcerated individuals as members of the community and as deserving of their services as any other
victim of crime. Allegations of sexual abuse must also trigger an internal administrative investigation,
and when the allegations are substantiated, the perpetrator must be disciplined. Until more cases are
successfully prosecuted, many inmate and staff perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject
only to administrative discipline, making sanctions especially important. Individuals conducting
administrative investigations must base their conclusions on what the “preponderance of the evidence”
shows—a standard less stringent than that required to convict someone of a crime but adequate to
protect individuals from being labeled as perpetrators and sanctioned internally without cause.

28
29
Ext. Supreme Court Decisions Solve
Farmer decision ensures guards will be held liable for indifference – either squo solves or plan can’t
overcome legal problems
The Farmer decision made clear that prisoners need not inform correctional officers of threats to
their safety in order to establish deliberate indifference and hold officials liable. Both the
government in its brief and the Court declined to adopt this Seventh Circuit requirement. Dee
Farmer's experience in the lower courts illustrates the significance of this point. Relying on McGill
v. Duckworth, [FN87] the *293 district court granted the BOP defendants' summary judgment
motion due to Farmer's failure to inform prison officials before the rape that she faced a serious risk
of harm. Based upon the lack of notice, the district court apparently presumed no knowledge on the
part of the defendants, and thereby disregarded Farmer's allegations. Justice Souter vacated the
lower court's grant of summary judgment on the ground that Farmer's failure to notify BOP officials
was not dispositive. [FN88]
Successful inhumane treatment lawsuits prove courts solve

Farmer has also had an impact on prisoner-plaintiffs who allege constitutionally inadequate medical
care and conditions of confinement. "Reasoning in the same vein as Farmer v. Brennan," the
Seventh Circuit, in Raine v. Williford, [FN103] recently reversed the lower court's grant of
defendant-prison officials' summary judgment motion where the plaintiff alleged that he was
subjected to freezing cell temperatures without blankets or clothes at USP-Marion: We conclude . . .
that plaintiff is entitled to have the trier of fact determine whether the conditions of his
administrative confinement, principally with regard to the cell temperature and the provision of
hygiene items, violated the minimal standards required by the Eighth Amendment. [FN104]
Successful inhumane treatment lawsuits prove courts solve

Farmer has also had an impact on prisoner-plaintiffs who allege constitutionally inadequate medical
care and conditions of confinement. "Reasoning in the same vein as Farmer v. Brennan," the
Seventh Circuit, in Raine v. Williford, [FN103] recently reversed the lower court's grant of
defendant-prison officials' summary judgment motion where the plaintiff alleged that he was
subjected to freezing cell temperatures without blankets or clothes at USP-Marion: We conclude . . .
that plaintiff is entitled to have the trier of fact determine whether the conditions of his

29
30
administrative confinement, principally with regard to the cell temperature and the provision of
hygiene items, violated the minimal standards required by the Eighth Amendment. [FN104]

30
31
AT: But Parenti Proves Precedent Fails
Their Parenti evidence is bad – it only assumes ONE instance where the Court did not awarded damages
but doesn’t say that the legal precedent overall fails.

31
32
1NC Gender
1. Not reverse casual – outside society influences prison culture, not the other way around. Solving
masculine domination in prisons doesn’t spillover to the rest of society.
2. US prisons aren’t modeled – prefer this evidence, cites specific policies and countries vs generic and
unwarranted analysis
Mallory, PhD candidate Social, Political, Ethical, and Legal Philosophy, 06
(Jason Mallory, PhD candidate at SUNY in Social, Political, Ethical, and Legal Philosophy, full-time faculty in
Philosophy at Estrella Mountain College, “Globalization, Prisons, and the Philosophy of Punishment”,
Women’s Studies, Volume 35 Issue 6, pg529)
Two million people are now behind bars in the U.S. (A. Davis, Obsolete 10); among these prisoners, 50 percent are African
American and 17 percent are Latina/o (Mauer, Race 118-119). Although women currently constitute only 6.7 percent of the
U.S. prison population, their numbers more than doubled in the 1990s, and the rate of women's imprisonment has now
reached historically high proportions (Chesney-Lind 80-81). This "gigantic social experiment" (Silverstein 3) with mass
incarceration is having vast adverse implications domestically, as the recent literature on this topic clearly demonstrates i
and as I will discuss in more detail in the following section. But what is often overlooked is that the U.S., as "the most
powerful state that has ever existed" (Tormey 141), is slowly changing the penal climate on a global scale. One
interesting consequence of the U.S. penal policy in other countries is that nations with less punitive
approaches to crime have taken notice and defined the U.S. policy of mass incarceration as an example
of what one should not do. Vivien Stern argues that many European countries consider the U.S. approach to
controlling and preventing anti-social behavior to be one of unmitigated failure . She writes: Among
mainstream politicians and commentators in Western Europe, it is a truism that the criminal justice
system of the United States is an inexplicable deformity [ ... ]. [A]s a whole it presents a picture that arouses
incredulity and incomprehension. There is incomprehension at the use of the death penalty for disproportionate
numbers of poor people and minorities, for mentally retarded people, those who were juveniles at the time of their crime,
and those whose trials were manifestly flawed. There is incredulity at the high and rising American rate of
incarceration, now approaching 700 per 100,000 of the population when the West European norm is less than 100, at the
length of prison sentences, and at the treatment of prisoners. (280) But this critique of the U.S. prison system also
extends beyond Western Europe. Indeed, some Canadian government officials have reacted with shock at
the penal philosophies and policies of their southern neighbor. Canada's prison population has grown in recent
years (partly as a result of the influence of U.S. policy), but it still remains relatively low at 32,500 prisoners in 1994 com -
pared with 1.5 million people incarcerated in the U.S. at the same time (Gaucher and Lowman 67). During the 1990s, the
Canadian government went so far as to publish educational materials designed to inform the Canadian public about the
dangers of larger prison populations. One of these materials included the following insightful analysis of U.S. penal policy:
One only has to look at the experience of the United States to see that relying solely on incarceration is a 'dead end' street.
The American incarceration rate is one of the highest in world, but it has not made the United States a safer place to live
[ . ]. The United States is a good example of what happens when governments rely too heavily on incarceration. (Stern 282)
Similarly, the Netherlands, a country with "a long Dutch tradition of decarceration" (Van Swaaningen 12), issued a
policy statement from the Netherlands Ministry of Justice that responded to those calling for an emulation of U.S.
prison policy: "More prison sentences lead to more cells, more cells lead to still more incarcera tion.
How must this spiral be broken? Justice is striving for a broad range of
(continued no text removed) penalties" (Stern 281).
3. Plan doesn’t change nature of rape in prisons – rape is still allowed to occur within prisons post plan.
1ac Golden is terrible on this question – it just says people might act in accordance to the law but this
puts them in a double bind. Either a) people will follow the law and status quo court decisions are
stopping rape now or b) people will deviate from the law and the plan doesn’t prevent future rape.

32
33

33
34
1NC International Law Frontline 1/2
1. No internal link – 1AC Peretti never says the 8 th amendment would spillover worldwide – it just says if
the U.S. adopted the 8th amendment, it could prevent prison rape better.
2. No solvency – plan doesn’t explicitly uphold the 8 th amendment. Make them prove how the plan would
be any different from the status quo.
3. Congress upholds 8th amendment protection from prison rape now – their 1AC author concedes.
Christopher L. Peretti, J.D. Candidate, Emory University School of Law, ALIGNING THE EIGHTH
AMENDMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL NORMS TO DEVELOP A STRONGER STANDARD FOR
CHALLENGING THE PRISON RAPE EPIDEMIC, Fall, 2007
Congress has recently enacted legislation that recognizes and purports to solve the prison rape
epidemic. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 was designed “[t]o provide for the analysis of the
incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information,
resources, recommendations, and funding to protect individuals from prison rape.”134 Mainly, the Act
serves as a mandate to collect data on the frequency and nature of prison rape in the United States.135
The Act also allows the Attorney General to solicit complaints from victimized inmates.136 The
Prison Rape Elimination Act takes a different approach toward prison rape than the one currently
employed by the court in interpreting the Eighth Amendment.137 The Act focuses on objective
criteria to prevent prison rape rather than on the subjective beliefs of individual prison officials.138
Among the proposals in the Act is the creation of national standards to which prisons must conform139
and a training program signed to help prison officials identify and prevent inmate rape in their
facilities.140 The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, the body authorized by the Act to
conduct the legal and factual studies on prison rape, states as a goal of the establishment of a “zero-
tolerance standard for the incidence of prison sexual assault in America’s lockups, jails, juvenile
facilities, and prisons.”141 Adopting zero-tolerance policy and proposing objective solutions for
protecting prisoners from rape functions independently of the subjective deliberate indifference
standard.142 Congress perhaps chose this direction as a “result of the judiciary’s faulty Eighth
Amendment interpretations.”143 Similarly, this Act could be regarded as a demonstration that our
society’s “evolving standards of decency”144 include a decreased tolerance for prison rape as
compared with the Court’s. While this Act is a step in the right direction, it shows that the Farmer
interpretation of the Eighth Amendment is inadequate in protecting prisoners and should be
changed.145
4. Their impact comes from the Malaysian Medical Association – it quotes zero experts and has no
qualifications to make an extinction claim.
5. Alt cas – nuclear weapon production against the ICJ, violations of the UN, and military expenditures
violate international law. That’s their 1AC impact card.

34
35
1NC International Law Frontline 2/2
6. International law is vague and unenforceable – sovereign nations can interpret or ignore it
Casey and Rivkin 06
(Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin, Jr., August 18, 2006, “International Law and the Nation-State at the U.N.:
A Guide for U.S. Policymakers”)
At the same time, it is also fair to say that, beyond a few academics and activists, most Americans
do not look to international institutions or the “international community” for validation of their
government’s actions or their own. One might well ask, in response to the German Foreign
Ministry, what is the “international community”? Does it, for example, include China’s Communist
rulers or the Persian Gulf’s divine right monarchs? And what obligations, exactly, might Americans
have to them? Law, in the United States, is made by our elected representatives, and the measure of
its legitimacy is the United States Constitution. As a result, of course, international law has never
been treated as a rigid and imperative code of con duct by U.S. policymakers. This attitude toward
international law transcends political ideology and party label. Nowhere was it better displayed than
in an exchange between then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her British counterpart,
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, during the run-up to NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo. As
reported by Mrs. Albright’s spokesman James Rubin, when Cook explained that British lawyers
objected to the use of military force against Serbia without U.N. approval, she replied simply “get
new lawyers.”[3]Mrs. Albright’s suggestion was perhaps undiplomatic, but it revealed a firm grasp
of the essential genius of international law: It is a body of norms made by states for states, and its
content and application are almost always open to honest dispute. Moreover, and most important of
all, there is no global power or authority with the ultimate right to establish the meaning of
international law for all. Every independent state has the legal right—and the obligation—to
consider and interpret international law for itself. In other words, when questions are asked about
the meaning and requirements of international law, the answers will probably, and properly, depend
on who the lawyers are. This does not mean that international law is illusory or that it can or should
be ignored by states in the day-to-day exercise of power. It does mean, however, that international
law is best viewed as a collection of behavioral norms—some arising from custom and some from
express agreement, some more well-established and some less so—that it is in the interest of states
to honor. As Chief Justice John Marshall explained in 1812 in describing one important aspect of
international law:[4]The world being composed of distinct sovereignties, possessing equal rights
and equal independence, whose mutual benefit is promoted by intercourse with each other, and by
an interchange of those good offices which humanity dictates and its wants require, all sovereigns
have consented [to certain legal norms].The key, of course, is consent. Ultimately, the binding
nature of international law is a matter of the consent of sovereign states. They can interpret that law
in accordance with their understanding and interests, they can attempt to change it, and they can
choose to ignore it—so long as they are prepared to accept the very real political, economic, and
even military consequences that may result. This is the essence of sovereignty, which itself is the
basis and guarantor of self-government.
7. Emperically denied – the League of Nations couldn’t stop Hitler from invading Europe or prevent
World War II.
8. Alt cas – China violates international human right standards now. Plan can’t reverse China’s policy.

35
36
1NC Solvency Frontline 1/2
1. 1AC Patterni concedes alt cas – prison culture, guards, inmates, and patirachy prevent victims from
successful lawsuit
2. 1AC Golden says anti prison rape laws exist now – their internal link is based on perception. Either a)
status quo prison laws deter rape now or b) prisoners won’t perceive laws and continue to rape
3. Alt cas –most prisoners won’t know how to sue for rape
Coalition To Stop Abuse and Violence Everywhere, No Date given
SAVE: Coalition To Stop Abuse and Violence Everywhere, “Protect Victims of Prison Rape and Other Abuses:
Reform the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)”
The PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available,” which means
that prisoners must complete the prison’s internal administrative grievance process before filing suit, in
the hope that many disputes will be resolved before they get to court. The Supreme Court has held that
this requires “proper exhaustion,” i.e., “compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical
procedural rules.”7 Over the past 10 years, hundreds, even thousands, of claims of serious and
unconstitutional abuse of prisoners have been forever barred for lack of “proper exhaustion,”8 with no
inquiry into the truth of the prisoner’s substantive claims.9 Prisoners – many of whom have little
education, read poorly or not at all,10 or have mental illness or mental retardation11 – are ill-equipped to
comply with technical rules under short deadlines and without the assistance of legal counsel. Unlike
most federal administrative remedies, prison and jail grievance systems tend to have extremely short
deadlines, mostly 30 days or less, many as short as a week or two. 12 Further, many prison grievance
systems have unclear rules13 or are inconsistently administered,14 and some prisoners are subjected to
misinformation15 or even threats by prison staff16 that impede them from exhausting properly. Some
prisoners’ grievances simply disappear.17 In a remarkable number of cases, prisoners receive no
response whatsoever to their grievances,18 and prison officials have gotten many cases dismissed by
arguing that the prisoner failed to appeal the officials’ failure to respond.19 There is no exception for
immediate threats to health or safety.20 The result is that prisoner litigation has turned into a game of
“gotcha”21 in which correctional system lawyers and the federal courts scour the record for mistakes in
exhausting, while the merits are forgotten,22 often on the most hair-splitting of grounds.23
4. Rape in this context isn’t the worst impact – their moral claims are predicated off of innocent women
getting raped by men, not potentially violent criminals or drug dealers getting raped

36
37
1NC Solvency Frontline 2/2
5. Don’t solve outsourced private prisons have bad conditions and are motivated by profit – alt cause
Chen, staff writer, 08
(Stephanie, staff writer, Wall Street Journal, 11/19/08, “Larger Inmate Population is Boon to Private
Prisons,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122705334657739263.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
The Federal Bureau of Prisons, the government agency that operates all federal prisons and manages
the handling of inmates convicted of federal crimes, has awarded 13 contracts since 1997 to prison
companies to build prisons and detention centers that house low-security inmates, primarily "low
security criminal aliens," says Felicia Ponce, a spokeswoman for the agency. The contracts give the
bureau "flexibility to manage a rapidly growing inmate population and to help control overcrowding,"
Ms. Ponce says. Outsourcing incarceration to prison companies can reduce a government's cost of
housing those prisoners by as much as 15%, according to a study by the Reason Foundation, a research
organization in Los Angeles. Private operators say they can build prisons more quickly and operate
them less expensively than governments because their payroll costs are lower and they can consolidate
prisoners from many far-flung jurisdictions into facilities located in areas where land and building
costs are very low. Some groups accuse the private prisons of neglecting inmates or of putting them in
bad conditions. "Profit is still a motive and it's structured into the way these prisons are operated," says
Judy Greene, a justice-policy analyst for Justice Strategies, a nonprofit studying prison-sentencing
issues and problems. "Just because the system has expanded doesn't mean there is evidence that
conditions have improved." ‘
6. Prisoners won’t sue for rape – fear of stigma

Dumond, Consultants for Improved Human Services, 06
(Robert W. Dumond, LMHC, Dip. CFC, Consultants for Improved Human Services, “Testimony Review Panel
on Prison Rape California State Prison, 11/15/06, http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7Oe-
2NGUdKcJ:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_nov06/written-dumond.pdf+%22state+governments
%22+rape+solution&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Underreporting of sexual violence is a major issue in correctional settings as well, for many of the
same reasons outlined above, but also for reasons which relate to specific dynamics of the
environment. Many authorities have argued that if a prisoner reports being sexually victimized, he/she
may be placed in a “no-win” situation (Cotton & Groth, 1982, Dumond, 2006; Kunselman,
Tewksbury, Dumond, & Dumond, 2002): staff may respond poorly or blame the victim (Eigenberg,
1989, 2000); a victim may have to be placed in protective custody, segregation, or transferred
(Chonco, 1989); or a victim may be labeled as a “homo” or “punk” (Smith & Batiuk, 1989) or
“snitch” (Dumond, 1992; Eigenberg, 1994). Admitting sexual victimization is admitting weakness to a
sexual predator (Toch, 1977), which promotes further victimization in the alien world where power
and aggression are glorified, and where social status and sexual behavior are often joined (Chonco,
1989; Cotton & Groth, 1982; Dumond, 2006, 1992; Kunselman, Tewksbury, Dumond, 1992; Smith &
Batiuk, 1989, West, 1977). While an insidious and pervasive “inmate code” exercises a strong
influence on prisoners to discourage and deter reporting, a similar “code of silence” also exists among
staff, discouraging reporting to confront and address staff sexual misconduct (Human Rights Watch,
Smith, 2006, 1998).

37
38
***COURTS COUNTERPLAN***

38
39
Courts CP 1NC
Text - The Supreme Court of the United States should rule that rape is a compensable physical injury
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.
Lower courts are ruling that rapes aren’t physical injuries in the status quo – only the counterplan
reverse that trend so prisoners can successfully sue – their 1AC author concedes
Deborah M. Golden, Attorney at the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, It’s Not All in My Head: The
Harm of Rape and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Fall 2004, Cardozo Women's Law Journal, Yeshiva
University, lexis
B. S ome Courts Declare Rape a Physical Injury, but Provide No Useful Analysis Some courts have
held that rape is an inherent physical injury. Unfortunately, while setting good law, these cases have
omitted any in-depth examination of the issues, limiting their usefulness as persuasive case law outside
of their circuit. The premiere example of this approach is Liner v. Goord.18 Mr. Liner alleged, among
other things, that prison guards had sexually assaulted him on three separate occasions. 19 The district
court dismissed these claims for failure to allege a physical injury, but the Second Circuit, noting that
the PLRA did not define a physical injury, reversed. 20 Its only explanation for its holding was that “the
alleged sexual assaults qualify as physical injuries as a matter of common sense.” 21 One notable Second
Circuit case has followed Liner, but it too lacks a satisfactory analysis. 22 In Noguera v. Hasty, a female
inmate filed suit alleging that a male officer sexually assaulted her and then put her at further danger
by spreading rumors that she was a snitch. 23 Defendants argued that the retaliatory rumor-spreading
was not compensable, since there was no physical injury.24 Citing Liner, the court held that the rape is a
physical injury, and thus all the acts, considered together, were compensable. 25 The court justified its
holding by noting that “[t]he potential for frivolous suits and feigned emotional injuries is greatly
diminished in rape cases where the victim makes a showing of physical injury resulting from the rape
itself.”26 This reasoning raises an important point. If Congress did not intend that the PLRA shut
deserving plaintiffs out of court, then amending the PLRA to include rape makes sense and is faithful
to the Act’s original intent. Once rape is proven, it should follow that a suit is not frivolous. Two
district courts outside the Second Circuit adopt the reasoning of Liner. The first, Nunn v. Michigan
Department of Corrections, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding, “that allegations of rape
and sexual assault are latent with the notion of physical injury sufficiently to support Plaintiffs’ claim
and to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”27 The decision unfortunately provides no further analysis
regarding the physical injury of rape.28 These decisions provide limited persuasive authority for other
courts, which might not share the same outlook or the same definition of “common sense.” Other
courts have taken a different tack. C. S ome Courts Avoid the Question by Focusing on Accompa
nying Physical Injuries A tempting alternative is to avoid the question of whether rape is a physical
injury in and of itself by focusing on other, sometimes minor physical injuries that may be present after
a rape. True, courts should refrain from deciding unnecessary questions, but these cases are different—
courts are purposely avoiding the central question that needs to be addressed by exaggerating
accompanying injuries that may actually be minor. With seemingly little regard for the insignificance
of these injuries compared to the significance of the violation of the rape itself, some courts have
latched onto minor injuries to get past the 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) requirements in male rape cases. The
Sixth Circuit, in a brief, unpublished decision, implicitly decided that a rape itself is not enough of a
physical injury to overcome the PLRA requirement and looked to other injuries reportedly suffered by

39
40
the inmate.29 In Styles v. McGinnis, Mr. Styles, a prisoner in the Michigan state system, appealed the
District Court’s dismissal of his action alleging sexual assault during the course of a physical exam by
an emergency room doctor after he was admitted for angina. 30 Mr. Styles complained that he received
an unnecessary and nonconsensual rectal exam.31 The trial court dismissed the case directly on the
grounds that Mr. Styles did not allege a physical injury that would satisfy the requirements of 42
U.S.C. 1997e(e).32 The appellate court seemed concerned that an alleged “sexual assault” would not
meet the requirements of the PLRA. The alleged assault was a digital rectal examination, assumed for
the purpose of a motion to dismiss to be nonconsensual on the part of Mr. Styles. 33 This is not the
typical conception of what constitutes sexual assault, and perhaps the court was therefore not as
outraged. However, Mr. Styles did characterize this event as a sexual assault. 34 Rather than hold that
unwanted penetration is a physical injury or conduct any analysis as to whether it should be so
considered, the court skirted the issue by focusing on Mr. Styles’ “increased blood pressure, chest pain,
tachycardia, and numerous premature ventricular contractions.” 35 In other words, the court focused on
the relatively minor symptoms that Styles claimed to be a result of the “sexual assault” (rather than
recognizing that these symptoms perhaps had resulted from the angina with which he was originally
admitted to the emergency room) and concluded that these physical injuries allowed Mr. Styles to
defeat a motion to dismiss.36 It is not clear in the court’s short decision how they distinguished the
symptoms resulting from the sexual assault from the increased blood pressure and chest pain that
accompanies angina. 37 Additionally, the court never discussed how tachycardia (i.e., rapid heart beats)
and premature ventricular contractions, both of which occur in healthy people under stress, are
cognizable physical injuries distinguishable from stress,38 which is generally understood as an
emotional, rather than a physical, state. Despite its somersaults of reasoning, the court must have been
uncomfortable with its own analysis and mentions Liner v. Goord39 for the proposition that rape is a
physical injury in and of itself, but does not go so far as to rule on these grounds. Because of its
unwillingness to face the central issue, the opinion focuses entirely on the symptoms of the presenting
disease or stress. Kemner v. Hemphill is another case concerning a male inmate who was sexually
assaulted.40 The District Court for the Northern District of Florida performed analytical gymnastics
similar to the court in Styles: reaching a conclusion that accompanying minor physical injuries (mostly
symptoms of stress) allow a suit to survive the PLRA’s limiting language. 41 The facts are this: Mr.
Kemner alleged he was left alone in the cell with another inmate who sexually assaulted him and
forced him to perform oral sex.42 Mr. Kemner alleged that he suffered “physical pain, cuts, scrapes, and
bruises,” in addition to vomiting after the other inmate ejaculated in his mouth. 43 Faced squarely with a
challenge from the defendants that these injuries were not sufficient under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), 44 the
court had to address what would be a sufficient physical injury under the PLRA. As the court stated,
“The courts are troubled, however, where offensive bodily intrusion or sexual touching is involved.” 45
In dicta, the court discusses the nature of sexual assault and rape: There can be no question, therefore,
that sexual battery is an extreme act of violence to human dignity, and that sexual battery involving
penetration is “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Sexual battery often involves more than a de
minimus use of force. But where only fear and intimidation are used, it might appear that no physical
force is present. But that is error. A sexual battery involves, at a minimum, the physically forceful
activity of the assailant. Copulation requires movement… . This kind of physical force, even if
considered to be de minimus from a purely physical perspective, is plainly “repugnant to the
conscience of mankind.” Surely Congress intended the concept of “physical injury” in § 1997e(e) to
cover such a repugnant use of physical force.46 In the end, though, the court was unwilling to hold that
sexual assault was a per se physical injury. Resting on the plaintiff’s claims of cuts, bruises, abrasions,
shock, and vomiting, the court found that the plaintiff had suffered a physical injury. 47 This was despite

40
41
the fact that bumps and bruises are often considered too mundane in other contexts to overcome the
barrier of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), and shock and vomiting are often considered signs of stress, not
physical injuries. Neither of the analyses in the above two cases is satisfying. First, they both avoid the
central question: whether a rape itself is a physical injury. Second, they both avoid the question by
focusing on injuries that in other contexts are not considered even remotely serious enough to defeat
the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).48 D. U nfortunat ely, At Least One Court Has Held that Rape
is Not An Injury The lack of focus on the exact injury of rape is dangerous. While attempting to be true
to the language of the PLRA, the above courts have left open the possibility of courts using “common
sense” to reach opposite results. One such example comes out of a Fifth Circuit district court. In
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendant “sexually battered them by sodomy, and
committed other related assaults” were insufficient to satisfy the PLRA’s physical injury requirement.49
Displaying a disturbing application of “common sense,” the court held, with no further analysis, that
the victim needed to do more than “make a claim of physical injury beyond the bare allegation of
sexual assault,” to meet the requirements of 42 USC § 1997e(e).50 V. Courts Must Be Clear That Rape
Is Physical Injury by Definition By squarely confronting whether rape is in and of itself a physical
injury, courts can avoid repetition of this sort of holding. In support of holdings that rule that rape is
physical injury is the fact that, since the beginning of recorded law, rape has been considered a heinous
crime. Rape has been classified as an offense worthy of the death penalty. It violates the boundaries of
the physical body and intrudes into the sanctity of the sexual conception of the self. Rape is simply not
equivalent to receiving chunky peanut butter or bad hair cuts, examples of subjects of frivolous
complaints cited by the PLRA’s proponents. Rape is so heinous and injurious that it falls into that
category that “virtually everybody believes” 51 is too torturous to force upon any convicted criminal.
Rape is much more than an “emotional injury.”52 “Prison rape, like all other forms of sexual assault, is
torture.”53 Rape, therefore, must be a compensable injury within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

41
42
***POLITICS LINK***

42
43
Plan Popular
Prison reform popular – dems and economy
New York Times, 09
(New York Times, staff editorial, 1/1/09, “Senator Jim Webb’s Call for Prison Reform,”
http://webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record_article.cfm?id=306245)
Many inmates are serving long sentences for nonviolent crimes, including minor drug offenses. It also
is extraordinarily expensive. Billions of dollars now being spent on prisons each year could be used in
far more socially productive ways. Senator Webb — a former Marine and secretary of the Navy in the
Reagan administration — is in many ways an unlikely person to champion criminal justice reform. But
his background makes him an especially effective advocate for a cause that has often been associated
with liberals and academics. In his two years in the Senate, Mr. Webb has held hearings on the cost of
mass incarceration and on the criminal justice system’s response to the problems of illegal drugs. He
also has called attention to the challenges of prisoner re-entry and of the need to provide released
inmates, who have paid their debts to society, more help getting jobs and resuming productive lives.
Mr. Webb says he intends to introduce legislation to create a national commission to investigate these
issues. With Barack Obama in the White House, and strong Democratic majorities in Congress, the
political climate should be more favorable than it has been in years. And the economic downturn
should make both federal and state lawmakers receptive to the idea of reforming a prison system that is
as wasteful as it is inhumane.
Prison reform initiatives have widespread support in congress and in lobbies

Culpepper ‘9 (Lamar Culpepper is a former board member and Chairman, Board of Directors, Rosebud
Advocaacy (f.k.a. Rosebud Foundations, June 13th 2009, ‘Testimony at Senate Hearing on National Prison
reform’, http://www.examiner.com/x-7357-Atlanta-Criminal-Rehabilitation-Examiner~y2009m6d13-
Testimony-at-Senate-Hearing-on-national-prison-reform)
The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs convened a hearing
on proposed national prison reform legislation. Virginia Senator Jim Webb introduced bill S.714 in
March to create a commission to thoroughly review the entire criminal justice system and make
recommendations for reform in several areas of significant concern. (See related article: ‘Senator Jim
Webb proposes 2009 national prison reform.’) Since being introduced, the bill already has widespread
support with 29 cosponsors in the Senate including Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs Senator Arlen
Specter (D-PA) and Ranking Member Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Judiciary Committee
member Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Numerous organizations, currently numbering 42, now endorse
the legislative endeavor with interest continuing to expand as public awareness increases.

43
44
Plan = Bipartisan
Prison reform is bi-partisan in Congress

Institute for Southern Studies, 2k9
(The Institute for Northern Studies, June 12, 2009, “The American Lockdown”,
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/06/post-18.html)
The prison crisis in the United States is at a historic high. As Facing South has reported before, the United States incarcerates
one out of every 100 adults. Combine this with the number of people under probation or parole, and the statistic is even starker:
one in 31 adults (7.3 million people) is under some form of correctional supervision. But talk of prison reform has been
making its way through Congress this year. On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the National
Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, SB 714. This important piece of legislation was introduced in late March by
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), and if passed would create a "blue-ribbon commission" charged with completing an 18-month "top-
to-bottom review" of the country's entire criminal-justice system, ultimately providing Congress with specific, concrete
recommendations for reform. The legislation has received bipartisan support and currently has 29 cosponsors in the
Senate.
Public sentiment is forging bipartisan support for prison reform

(Liliana Segura is a staff writer and editor of AlterNet's Rights and Liberties and War on Iraq Special
Coverage, March 5th 2008, ‘America Behind Bars: Why Attempts at Prison Reform Keep Failing’,
http://www.alternet.org/rights/78648/?page=entire)
While public shock and dismay over the criminal justice system is a good thing, policy reform usually
only comes once those in power recognize public support for measures otherwise considered too
politically risky. (Iraq war notwithstanding.) Indeed, a significant part of the Pew study (which was
written mainly with politicians in mind) is devoted to showing that policy makers are starting to come
around on the prison issue, increasingly talking about being "smart" rather than "tough" on crime. The
hope is that others will take their lead. "There's a shift away from the mindset of lock them up and
throw away the key," one Ohio Republican legislator is quoted as saying. Alternatives include
investing in drug treatment for prisoners -- as well as "drug courts" -- relaxing stringent parole rules
and curbing mandatory minimums. Ironically (if necessarily) the states that appear to be paving the
way on prison reform are the ones who lock up the most people. Take Texas: Between 1985 and 2005,
its prison population rose by 300 percent, a growth rate even the state's death row machinery couldn't
offset. Now, with an estimated prison population of 171,790, according to the Pew study, the Lone Star
State is forging "a new path," with a bipartisan decision last year to authorize a "virtual makeover" of
the prison system. The overhaul will include more drug treatment for prisoners and "broad changes in
parole practices" aimed to curb recidivism rates. If all goes according to plan, the state may be able to
shelve emergency blueprints for three new prisons. "It's always been safer politically to build the next
prison, rather than stop and see whether that's really the smartest thing to do," the Houston-based chair
of the Texas senate's criminal justice committee said. "But we're at the point where I don't think we can
afford to do that anymore."

44
45
Plan = Bipartisan
Prison reform has bi-partisan support.

(Gina Dalfonzo, June 30, 2008 “Prison Reform Transcends Boundaries”,
http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/2008/06/mark-earley-and.html)
Today the New York Times profiles PFM president Mark Earley and vice president (and Justice
Fellowship head) Pat Nolan, focusing on how advocates of prison reform are crossing lines in a
way that few had thought possible.
Motivated both by religious faith and a secular analysis of public policy, Mr. Earley and the
fellowship’s vice president, Pat Nolan, a former California legislator, have regularly testified
before Congress, written op-ed essays and given speeches on behalf of efforts to roll back
mandatory-minimum sentencing, equalize penalties for crack and powder cocaine, and offer
nonviolent offenders treatment rather than incarceration, among other initiatives. On the surface
a redoubt of the religious right, firmly rooted in evangelical Christianity and conservative politics, the
Prison Fellowship Ministries’ liberal position on such issues underscores the increasing irrelevance of
such rigid categories. The group’s role in criminal justice bears similarity to the stance taken by
evangelical leaders like Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church in Southern California, on
global warming, AIDS prevention and Third World poverty. “What’s distinct is that we’re in an ‘Aha!’
moment now,” Mr. Earley, 53, said in a phone conversation. “The crime issue used to be such a
driving wedge between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and now it’s not. In
the presidential campaign this year, when have you heard crime as a wedge issue? It’s a common-
ground issue, and no one would have envisioned that in the ’70s and ’80s.”
Bipartisan Support for prison reform already exists- individual states prove
Tilton ‘8 (James E. Tilton is the California Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
‘Investing in Prison Reform Pays in Safety- Sets Bedrock for Lasting Reform, June 2008,
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/CDCR_News/page_8.html)
One year ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the most comprehensive and bipartisan prison reform legislation
that California has ever seen. The law’s passage was in response to a combination of crises that had the state’s prison
system on the verge of collapse. While there is still much hard work to be done, California is finally on the
right track toward real prison reform . Before the passage of Assembly Bill 900, the Public Safety and
Offender Rehabilitation Act of 2007, the state had no concrete plan to address the myriad serious
issues facing our prison system. Overcrowding was near record highs, and California was very close to
running out of beds for new inmates. Federal judges were contemplating imposing a population cap to
force the release of inmates who had not served their full sentences. Fortunately the Governor, working
with legislators from both parties , law enforcement and community leaders, crafted a plan to address these
issues head-on. The reform measure authorized transferring up to 8,000 inmates to out-of-state
facilities, funded up to 53,000 beds in state prisons and local jails to reduce overcrowding, and set
benchmarks to ensure that all inmates sent to prison are given access to rehabilitation programs.

45
46
Plan - Bipartisan
Republicans support prison reform.
(The New York Times, “The Right Has a Jailhouse Conversion”, December 24, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24GOP.t.html)
This decline in the exploitation of crime coincides with an odd and surprising change in the politics of crime. The G.O.P.,
the party of Richard Nixon’s 1968 law-and-order campaign and the Willie Horton commercial, is beginning to embrace the
idea that prisoners have not only souls that need saving but also flesh that needs caring for in this world. Increasingly,
Republicans are talking about helping ex-prisoners find housing, drug treatment, mental-health counseling, job
training and education. They’re also reconsidering some of the more punitive sentencing laws for drug possession. The
members of this nascent movement include a number of politicians not previously known for their attention to prisoners’
rights. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a former federal prosecutor whom The New Republic once accused of being stained
“with the taint of racism,” wants to reduce the penalty for possession of small amounts of crack. Referring to mandatory-
minimum sentences, Representative Bob Inglis of South Carolina, whose district is home to Bob Jones University, declared on
the floor of the House: “I voted for them in the past. I will not do it again.” Perhaps most remarkably, the outgoing
Republican-controlled Congress came tantalizingly close to passing the Second Chance Act, a bill that focuses not on
how to “lock them up” but on how to let them out. The bill may become law soon, if Democrats continue to welcome the
new conservative interest in rehabilitation.
Democrats support prison reform.

The Atlantic, 2k9
(The Atlantic Monthly, March 26 2009, “Push for Prison Reform”
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/a_push_for_prison_reform.php)
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will launch an effort to reform the nation's prison system today at noon,
his staff says, introducing a bill--the National Criminal Justice Act of 2009--that would create a
bipartisan commission on reform. The commission would undertake an 18-month review of the U.S.
prison system, offering recommendations at the end.Prison reform is a difficult thing to achieve,
politically. Nearly every politician wants to be perceived as "tough on crime," and suggesting that too
many Americans are being incarcerated can seem to run against that. (Webb has, in fact, pointed out
that the U.S. has attained the highest incarceration rate in the world.) Add tough discussions of prison
conditions, inmate crime, and abuse, and it's not an easy task for a politician to undertake.Webb has
succeeded in pushing major legislation through Congress before, as his 21st Century GI Bill passed
last year. And it's hard for anyone to accuse the former Navy secretary of not being "tough" enough.
Reported support from Democratic leaders, President Obama, and interest from Judiciary
Committee Ranking Member Arlen Specter could help him in this latest endeavor.

46
47
Plan Unpopular
Prison reform hugely unpopular

Greenwald, Salon.com writer, 09
(Glenn Greenwald, blog, Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/28/webb/, “Jim
Webb’s Courage vs. the ‘Pragmatism Excuse for Politicians,” 3/28/09)
It's hard to overstate how politically thankless, and risky, is Webb's pursuit of this issue -- both in
general and particularly for Webb. Though there has been some evolution of public opinion on some
drug policy issues, there is virtually no meaningful organized constituency for prison reform. To the
contrary, leaving oneself vulnerable to accusations of being "soft on crime" has, for decades, been one
of the most toxic vulnerabilities a politician can suffer (ask Michael Dukakis). Moreover, the
privatized Prison State is a booming and highly profitable industry, with an army of lobbyists,
donations, and other well-funded weapons for targeting candidates who threaten its interests.
Plan pisses off prison lobby – key influence in politics

Talvi, senior editor, 06
(Silja J.A. Talvi, senior editor @ In These Times, In These Times, “Follow the Prison Money Trail,”
9/4/06, http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2797/follow_the_prison_money_trail/)
Supposedly, states turn to private companies to cope better with chronic overcrowding and for low-
cost management. However, a closer look suggests a different rationale. A recent report from the
Montana-based Institute on Money in State Politics reveals that during the 2002 and 2004 election
cycles, private prison companies, directors, executives and lobbyists gave $3.3 million to candidates
and state political parties across 44 states. According to Edwin Bender, executive director of the
Institute on Money in State Politics, private prison companies strongly favor giving to states with the
toughest sentencing laws—in essence, the ones that are more likely to come up with the bodies to fill
prison beds. Those states, adds Bender, are also the ones most likely to have passed “three-strikes”
laws. Those laws, first passed by Washington state voters in 1993 and then California voters in 1994,
quickly swept the nation. They were largely based on “cookie-cutter legislation” pushed by the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), some of whose members come from the ranks of
private prison companies. Florida leads the pack in terms of private prison dollars, with its candidates
and political parties receiving almost 20 percent of their total contributions from private prison
companies and their affiliates. Florida already has five privately owned and operated prisons, with a
sixth on the way. It’s also privatized the bulk of its juvenile detention system. Texas and New Jersey
are close behind. But in Florida, some of the influence peddling finally seems to be backfiring. Florida
State Corrections Secretary James McDonough alarmed private prison companies with a comment
during an Aug. 2 morning call-in radio show. “I actually think the state is better at running the
prisons,” McDonough told an interviewer. His comments followed an internal audit last year by the
state’s Department of Management Services, which demonstrated that Florida overpaid private prison
operators by $1.3 million. Things may no longer be quite as sunny as they once were in Florida for the
likes of Nashville, Tenn.-based Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the former
Wackenhut, now known as the GEO Group of Boca Raton, Fla. But with a little bit of spiel-tinkering
—and a shift of attention to other states—the prison privatizers are likely to keep going. The key shift,
Bender explains, is that “the prison industry has gone from a we-can-save-you-money pitch to an
economic-development model pitch.” In other words, says Bender, “you need [their] prisons for jobs.”
If political donations are any measure, economically challenged and poverty-stricken states like New

47
48
Mexico are a great target. In this campaign cycle, Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson has already
received more contributions from a private prison company than any other politician campaigning for
state office in the United States. The Institute of Money in State Politics, which traced the donations,
reported that GEO has contributed $42,750 to Richardson since 2005—and another $8,000 to his
running mate, Lt. Gov. Diane Denish. Another $30,000 went from GEO to the Richardson-headed
Democratic Governors Association this past March. Richardson’s PAC, Moving America Forward,
was another prominent recipient of GEO donations. Now, its former head, prominent state capitol
lobbyist Joe Velasquez, is a registered lobbyist for GEO Care Inc., a healthcare subsidiary that runs a
hospital in New Mexico. But don’t get the idea that GEO has any particular love for Democrats:
$95,000 from the corporation went to the Republican Governors Association last year alone. What
companies like GEO do love are the millions of dollars rolling in from lucrative New Mexico contracts
to run the Lea County Correctional Facility (operating budget: $25 million/year), and the Guadalupe
County Correctional Facility ($13 million/year), among others. CCA also owns and operates the state’s
only
Plan Unpopular
women’s facility in Grants ($11 million per year). To make sure that those dollars keep flowing, GEO
and CCA have perfected the art of the “very tight revolving door,” says Bender, which involves
snapping up former corrections administrators, PAC lobbyists and state officials to serve as consultants
to private prison companies. In fact, the current New Mexico Corrections Department Secretary Joe
Williams was once on GEO’s payroll as their warden of the Lea County Correctional Facility. Earlier
this year, Williams was placed on unpaid administrative leave after accusations surfaced that he spent
state travel and phone funds to pursue a very close relationship with Ann Casey. Casey is a registered
lobbyist in New Mexico for Wexford Health Sources, which provides health care for prisoners at
Grants, and Aramark, which provides most of the state’s inmate meals. In her non-lobbying hours, it
turns out that Casey is also an assistant warden at a state prison in Centralia, Ill. It appears that even
for a prison industry enchanted by public-private partnership, Williams and Casey may have gone too
far.
Prison Reform will require Obama to spend political capital

Chris Good, Politics writer for The Atlantic, March 26, 2009
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will launch an effort to reform the nation's prison system today at noon,
his staff says, introducing a bill--the National Criminal Justice Act of 2009--that would create a
bipartisan commission on reform. The commission would undertake an 18-month review of the U.S.
prison system, offering recommendations at the end.
Prison reform is a difficult thing to achieve, politically. Nearly every politician wants to be
perceived as "tough on crime," and suggesting that too many Americans are being incarcerated can
seem to run against that. (Webb has, in fact, pointed out that the U.S. has attained the highest
incarceration rate in the world.) Add tough discussions of prison conditions, inmate crime, and
abuse, and it's not an easy task for a politician to undertake.
Webb has succeeded in pushing major legislation through Congress before, as his 21st Century GI Bill
passed last year. And it's hard for anyone to accuse the former Navy secretary of not being "tough"
enough. Reported support from Democratic leaders, President Obama, and interest from Judiciary

48
49
Committee Ranking Member Arlen Specter could help him in this latest endeavor.
Prison reform will be politically unpopular

Dale Eisman, Virginian-Pilot, March 26, 2009, http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking09/Jim_Webb_Prison_System.html
The senator said Kennedy told him that too many judges "don't understand prisons" and "don't pay
that much attention to what happens after we've moved the cases." Webb gained national attention last
year for his successful effort to secure a new GI Bill underwriting college costs for veterans of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. For a time, he was considered a prospect to run for vice president on the
Obama-led Democratic ticket. After winning his Senate seat by a razor-thin margin in 2006, "he's
improved his standing" with Virginia voters, said Mark Rozell, a political scientist at George Mason
University. "He's now seen as a strong incumbent." But Rozell added that "being hard on crime is the
politically safe place to be.... There's just not a lot of public sentiment out there to do something
about incarceration time. "Whether he's doing the right thing or not, politically it's risky."
Webb, a lawyer, said his interest in the issue goes back to his days as a Marine Corps officer, sitting on
courts-martial, and it was honed during law school when he did volunteer work on behalf of a young
black Marine accused of war crimes in Vietnam. Later, as a freelance journalist working for Parade
magazine, Webb toured prisons in Japan and was struck by how different that country's approach to
offenders is from America's, he said. With a population half that of the United States, Japan had just
40,000 people in prisons and jails, he said; the U.S. system had more than 500,000 locked up. That was
25 years ago; today's prison population is nearly five times as large. Webb has served as Navy
secretary and written several books since then but still does occasional articles for Parade. He wrote a
cover story on his prison initiative for Sunday's editions. He said he expects some political blow-
back, particularly from state Republicans. "Every statement I've ever made on this, every forum I've
had, I've said we want to put those who perpetrate violence, those who commit crime as a way of life...
we want those people to go to jail," Webb said. His concern is that "we've spent so much energy
chasing down the little guy that we haven't been able to focus properly on the violence and the
transnational organized crime that really threaten us."

49
50
Prison Lobbies Key
Prison lobbies control the government

Silverglate, criminal defense and civil liberites lawyer, Smeallie, paralegal,
(Harvey Silverglate, criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer and writer, Kyle Smeallie, paralegal,
“Freedom Watch: Jailhouse bloc,” 12/9/08, http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-
Jailhouse-bloc/?page=1#TOPCONTENT)
Almost a half-century later, that mindset has extended to both the local and federal law-and-order
sectors, which have argued for, and experienced, virtually unabated growth. Today, law-enforcement
groups regularly lobby against criminal-punishment reforms, and for the creation of new criminal
statutes and overly harsh prison sentences. While these efforts are cloaked as calls for public safety,
they are essentially creating more business for themselves.
The problem has become so widespread that some private correctional corporations — companies that
subcontract services, and even privately owned jails and prisons, to all levels of government — have
even lobbied the government to enact and maintain ever broader criminal laws and higher sentences.
Those private prisons are now rolling in the profit, and taking on more prisoners every day as federal
and state prisons run out of room to house their inmates.
But these lobbyists' success — and that of various law-enforcement groups — has given rise to a
veritable "prison-industrial complex" that not only uses fear to suppress these groups' true intentions —
it leaves taxpayers footing the bill.
Prison lobbies are hugely influential

Silverglate, criminal defense and civil liberites lawyer, Smeallie, paralegal,
(Harvey Silverglate, criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer and writer, Kyle Smeallie, paralegal,
“Freedom Watch: Jailhouse bloc,” 12/9/08, http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73092-Freedom-watch-
Jailhouse-bloc/?page=1#TOPCONTENT)
The societal costs — both human and financial — of these policies and practices are enormous, and
growing. California — which carried a $15.2 billion deficit into this fiscal year — spends $10 billion
per year on more than 170,000 inmates. Like the Bay State, California also faces high recidivism rates;
state records show that more than two-thirds of released inmates return to prison within three years. In
this context, a ballot battle — possibly more contentious than Massachusetts's Question 2 scuffle —
raged this past election season. Two separate initiatives, each from vastly different perspectives,
concerned the state's approach to criminal justice. The first, Proposition 5, would have expanded
treatment programs for those convicted of drug-related and nonviolent crimes. While the costs for
more rehabilitation were estimated at $1 billion a year, analysts said $2.5 billion would have been
saved from the reduction in prison costs. But, much like what transpired in Massachusetts, the
California District Attorney's Association, along with other law-enforcement agencies, vehemently
opposed the initiative. These agencies raised nearly $400,000 and, through the Web site of their
umbrella group, People Against Proposition 5, issued "facts" such as "Proposition 5 creates an 'Express
Lane' for drug dealers to get back on the streets and peddling dope to our kids." Conversely, nearly $1
billion would have been added to the cops' coffers under Proposition 6, which proposed new laws for
prosecutors to fight gang activity. Many of the same law-enforcement agencies that opposed Prop 5
supported Prop 6, joined by some "tough-on-crime" lawmakers who slashed $3 billion in education
from the state's 2008 budget. Included among the Prop 6 supporters was — you guessed it — the CCA.

50
51
The CCA's lobbying efforts, as well as those of publicly funded law-enforcement agents, wasn't
Prison Lobbies Key
enough to convince Californians, as nearly 70 percent of voters opposed Prop 6. Yet similarly high
numbers opted against Prop 5. Maybe the cops' Prop 6 push for more crime-fighting money and power
were too transparent for voters. Interestingly, though, their appeals to public safety in opposing Prop 5
seemed to work. California voters were quite possibly unaware that, by maintaining strict criminal
laws and closing off alternatives to incarceration, law-enforcement agencies maintained their strength.
The 1 percent solution?
From Niccolò Machiavelli to Rudy Giuliani, fear has been the foundation of ever-expanding political
power (and, for some, job status and security). And it continues to drive the prison-industrial complex.
Just as the United States Department of Justice was able to pressure Congress to enact the infamous
USA-Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, here in the
Bay State, an appeal to fear ("protect the children") prevailed in stampeding the legislature. In late
July, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law "An Act Further Protecting Children," a bill providing
stricter mandatory-minimum sentences for sex offenders who target children. The way this legislation
was presented made opposition appear callous and irresponsible. Who, after all, wouldn't want to keep
child predators off the streets? Yet tucked away in this bill are provisions that do far more than simply
protect the young. The proposal enables prosecutors to obtain private records from Internet and
telephone providers by issuing an "administrative subpoena." Prosecutors, having only to assert that
records are "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation," were granted ever-expanding
access into otherwise personal data. The telecoms, in turn, were granted blanket immunity from claims
of privacy violation. There was no mass protest from the customers. But at least one person did object.
Newton's Democratic state senator Cynthia Creem voiced skepticism in a July 29 Newton TAB op-ed.
Mindful that the most egregious provisions of the Patriot Act have been used to target not just terrorists
but journalists, activists, and Muslim charities, she wrote: "I cannot support this attack on privacy
rights when less-invasive and equally effective means are available. Our liberties should never be
sacrificed in the name of prosecutorial convenience." A few other scattered voices in the State Senate
echoed Creem. But perhaps Creem's reference to "convenience" missed the point — prosecutorial
power appears to have been the more likely goal. When the bill was passed by the Massachusetts
House and presented to the Senate, Coakley, having learned that other politicians were questioning the
bill's scope, lobbied hard so that no language would be changed (which would have required passage
again through the House). With robust MDAA support, as well as the backing of key legislative
leaders, 11 different role-call votes for amending provisions of the bill were voted down. Less than two
weeks after this truncated debate, the bill became law. Experienced observers of the legislative process
marveled at the ability of Coakley and her allies to forestall changes to the legislation. The United
States — "land of the free" — has five percent of the world's population, but it also, thanks to the
lobbyists and officiants behind the prison-industrial complex, shamefully holds 25 percent of the
world's incarcerated. It has a higher rate of imprisonment than the planet's most notorious despotisms.
One in 100 Americans is in jail.

51
i

GT Prisoners Neg: 58598991.docx Dartmouth 2K9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GT Prisoners Neg: 58598991.docx Dartmouth 2K9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

58598991.

docx Dartmouth 2K9

***DISAD TURNS THE CASE***.......................................................................................................................9

***RAPE RHETORIC KRITIK***......................................................................................................................11

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

The GT Prisons aff makes it easier to sue for rape.

1NC should be:

2NR Options (no particular order, all are good Ts)

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

(Better than “which branch of the USFG do you defend”)

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

A. Social services include healthcare, education, food, and transfer payments

B. The aff redefines a federal code to include rape.

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

We allow for good limits. Topical cases include:

Limits are the biggest impact -

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

A. Increase is direct growth, not removing a barrier

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

***DISAD TURNS THE CASE***

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

***RAPE RHETORIC KRITIK***

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

“A Fate Worse Than Death” K – 1NC

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

C. Reject the 1AC’s rape rhetoric.

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Discourse is a pre-requisite – not examining it reinforces rape victims’ suffering

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

All gender impacts are inevitable in a world of the plan

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Equating death to rape creates retribution in punishment

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Standards passed – they do the plan and more

WASHINGTON – The bipartisan National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC)

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Many victims cannot safely and easily report

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Successful inhumane treatment lawsuits prove courts solve

Successful inhumane treatment lawsuits prove courts solve

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

Last printed 0/0/0000 0:00:00 AM

6. Prisoners won’t sue for rape – fear of stigma

DISAD TURNS THE CASE.......................................................................................................................9

RAPE RHETORIC KRITIK......................................................................................................................11

DISAD TURNS THE CASE

RAPE RHETORIC KRITIK