Judge: Michael Davis (James Madison University)
Resolution: This house believes that prisons should be abolished
Paul H. Lim
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at April 27, 2015 06:25:25PM EST by Nathan Stouffer
I strongly affirm the following resolution, This House believes that prisons should be abolished.
To officially end or stop: to completely do away with
Returning to prison after being released
Being convicted of a crime and sent to prison
The Medical Dictionary
A facility providing therapy and training for rehabilitation.
Framework (This is how the round is going to be judged)
The affirmative must prove not that the current system doesnt work, but that there are much better alternatives in which we could totally abolish prisons and have a better society.
The negative side of this debate must prove that the current system is better than all alternatives presented by me, the affirmative.
Now we come to the retribution vs. rehabilitation debate. All buildings or facilities focused on rehabilitation will be considered rehabilitation facilities. All buildings that are focused more on punishing the inmates are going to be considered prisons in this debate round.
Contention 1 - The military solves for nonviolent criminals
"America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders." America Imprisons over a Million Nonviolent Offenders. The November Coalition, 1998. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
Entitled America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners, the JPI analysis of recent United States Justice Department data showed that over the past 20 years, the nonviolent prisoner population has increased at a rate much faster than the violent prisoner population, and that 77% of the people entering prisons and jails were sentenced for nonviolent offenses.
Schaie, K. Warner. "Historical Influences on Lives and Aging." Google Books. Springer, 2005. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
The military provides a quality environment for rehabilitation with a disciplined force and organized unit. According to Mattick in 1960, the state of Illinois tested about 3000 men and put them into the military. The results were amazing! Only 3.4% of criminals violated their parole while on active duty and in a follow up study of eight years after the fact, the rate of recidivism was only 10.5%, compared to the national average of 66.6%.
This means that criminals will now be participating members of our society, we will be safer because these former criminals will now not be violating the law, and they will be a tiny burden for taxpayers. According to the New York Times, the annual average taxpayer cost is $31,286 per inmate. New York State was the most expensive, with an average cost of $60,000 per prison inmate, whereas it only costs about $10,000 to train a US soldier and put them on onshore, active duty. So now we will be seeing safety benefits from a larger and higher trained military as well.
Contention 2 - Treatment institutions for the mentally different
Torrey, E. Fuller., Aaron D. Kennard, Don Eslinger, Richard Lamb, and James Pavle. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons than Hospitals a Survey of the States. Arlington, Va: Treatment Advocacy Center, 2010. More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals: A Survey of the States. Treatment Advocacy Center, May 2010. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.
According to Torrey et. al. in 2010, In historical perspective, we have returned to the early nineteenth century, when mentally different persons filled our jails and prisons. At that time, a reform movement, sparked by Dorothea Dix, led to a more humane treatment of mentally different persons. For over a hundred years, mentally different individuals were treated in hospitals. We have now returned to the conditions of the 1840s by putting large numbers of mentally different persons back into jails and prisons. Recent studies suggest that at least 16 percent of inmates in jails and prisons have a serious mental difference.
Given this, prisons to do not solve for the issues of the inmates, what they need are insane treatment institutions where people are dedicated to solving their problems not making them think about what they dont understand in little cell that solves almost nothing.
Contention 3 - Public service for violent criminals
So now that weve covered what to do with the majority of prisoners, we now have to look at the remaining 7% of criminals who happen to be intentionally violent.
I think a clear solution here would to be put them in a boarding house where they receive counseling and help for the issue. They would work in the day as public service agents under the direction of a few armed supervisors to keep them in control. They can stay for however long their sentence is and the whole time they will be contributing to society, building many public services such as parks, roads, and bridges.
All these alternatives have the intention of getting people back into a working society, making them not prisons, but rehabilitation facility. If prisons were to focus more on lowering recidivism rates, they would be considered an abolishment of that prison because of the way we will decide how buildings are defined, this is outlined in my framework.
According to The November Coalition, 1998
The more discipline and actual real life work a person does, the more we see a decrease in crime rates because they will be under real life situations. When a person is confined in a small amount of space in prison or jail, they cant experience real life situations to help their problem. Thats why people who have had a record for non-violent crimes can reduce their sentence with military services.
Posted at April 29, 2015 02:15:46AM EST by Paul H. Lim
Posted at May 1, 2015 01:49:28AM EST by Paul H. Lim
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 2, 2015 10:21:29AM EST by Michael Davis
|Category||Nathan Stouffer||Paul H. Lim|
|Use of evidence:||2||2.4|
|Coherence of arguments:||3||3|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||2.2||2.3|
|Identification of key points:||1.2||1.7|
|Comments:||You should choose one option for the opening speech.||Don't waste your speech time talking about how your opponent was over time|
The decision is for the Opposition: Paul H. Lim
Reason for Decision:
This debate is scattered and haphazard. Both sides have a very hard time narrowing down arguments to those that are important.
The affirmative basically spreads himself out of the debate. Trying to advance three options in the rebuttal ensures that all of the reasons why prisons are bad are conceded. So even if I don't this reform will work I gave zero idea what the advantages of banning prisons are.