Monica - rehab retrib affx - SCFI

brawnywinderSoftware and s/w Development

Dec 13, 2013 (3 years and 7 months ago)

111 views

Aff
-
Consequentialism

Resolved:

Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the
United States criminal justice system.

I affirm.


My

value

is

morality,

which

is

defined

as

right

and

ethical

behavior.


My

value

criterion

is

consequentialism,

which

is

looking

to

the

consequences

and

outcomes

of

an

action.

When

we

look

to

the

consequences

of

an

action,

we

can

determine

whether

or

not

that

action

is

moral.


I offer the following definitions for clarification:


Rehabilitation:

the
restoration of s
omeone to a useful place in society.

(wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Wordnet Princeton University)

Ought:

used to express obligation

(Merriam
-
Webster)

Retribution
:

punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act

(Oxford
Dictionary)

Criminal justice system
:



a

series

of

organizations

involved

in

apprehending,

prosecuting,

defending,

sentencing,and

jailing

tho
se

involved

in

crimes

-

including

law

enforcement,

attorneys,

judges,
courts

of

law,

prisons

(dictionary.com)


Contention

1
:

Retribution

is

ineffective.

Subpoint

A:

R
etribution

leads

to

recidivism.


Re
cidivism is defined as habitual relapse into crime. Without rehabilitation programs, past offenders will
not learn or change their behaviors, therefore leading to rep
eated crime. Coupled with the fact that
retribution is ineffective, it is obvious that rehabilitation is the only suitable option.

THE RETRIBUTION SYSTEM OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT WORKED OUT IN THE PAST

Aitken, 09

Jonathan Aitken is a former Conservative MP who wa
s imprisoned for perjury. His report,


'Locked Up Potential', for the Centre for
Social Justice, is published today. He was speaking to Mark


Hughes. Jonathan Aitken: The way we treat prisoners creates a conveyor belt of
crime. A system based


on punishment rather than rehabilitation won't work. MONDAY 23 MARCH 2009,


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jonathan‐aitken‐the‐way‐we‐treat‐prisoners‐


creates‐a‐conveyor‐belt‐of‐crime‐
1651743.html


But most offenders inside Britain's p
risons are low on the scale of criminality and if we are


interested in reducing offending
rates and getting people into law‐abiding lifestyles, which


currently we could hardly be doing a worse job of, then we need to consider
reform.


We have a system in

which two thirds of prisoners are re‐offending within two years.
When you


think that this is a prison system upon which we spend nearly £20bn a year, it's a very poor


return.
Because our system is based
on punishment rather than rehabilitation, we are s
imply


creating a permanent conveyor belt of crime
and offending, which in turn leads to prison


overcrowding.


People released from prison end up back
there because they are not helped to integrate back


into society.

The best way to do that is for them t
o get a job,
but our current legislation only


allows for criminal records to be expunged after at least 10 years.


It makes it impossible for former prisoners
to get jobs because if they are given an interview


they are forced to admit that they have a cr
iminal record. No one will then employ them,
and


they are dragged back into a life of crime…


The sad fact is that the deficiencies in our system are making it
difficult for prisoners to


reintegrate into society and instead they are leading people back t
o a life of
crime. This will


continue to be the case unless we look at reform. We need to move away from
retribution and


towards rehabilitation.




Subpoint

B:Rehabilitation

is

extremely

effective

at

reducing

recidivism


Cullen

and

Gendreau

1 writes

1

Even if interventions are effective with a range of other behaviors
, the question


still remains whether they are able
to reduce delinquent and criminal behavior.


Lipsey and Wilson

(1993)
listed 10 meta
-
analyses that were conducted
on evaluations of treat
ment programs for offenders. In all cases, a positive effect size


was reported
.
There was a tendency, however, for the treatment effect size for


offender interventions to be lower than that for interventions targeting
other


outcomes for change. The lower effect size may reflect the difficulty of changing antisocial conduct and/or the lower quality

of
interventions with offenders


(Losel 1995). Still, it
is instructive to reiterate that every meta
-
analysis of


offender
treatm
ent indicated that programs
, in the aggregate,
reduced problem


behavior. As such, there is no
evidence that offenders cannot be rehabilitated
.


Losel

(1995) has
conducted the most comprehensive
assessment of the metaanalyses of offender rehabilitation pro
grams
. In a review of 13 meta
-
analyses


published
between 1985 and 1995, Losel found that the mean effect size ranged


from a low of 0.05 to a high of 0.18.
This finding has been
confirmed in an


updated review by Redondo, Sanchez
-
Meca, and Garrido

(1999,
252).
The consistency of
the positive effect of treatment in these meta
-
analyses is important


because it suggests that this
result, at least in broad terms, is not dependent on


the sample of studies selected and coding
decisions made by individual author
s.


Indeed, even meta
-
analyses conducted by scholars
unsympathetic to rehabilitation produced positive effects

(see Whitehead and Lab 1989). Losel estimates


that across
all the meta
-
analyses, “the mean effect size of all assessed studies


probably has a s
ize of about 0.10” (p. 89). Using Rosenthal’s (1991) BESD
statistic,
this would mean that the recidivism rate for the treatment group would


be 45 percent
, while the
rate for the control group would be 55 percent.According to Losel (1995, 90

91),
however,
this

overall effect size
might

be


underestimated. Treatment groups, for example, are often compared with control groups that do not
receive “no intervention” but some other type of criminal justice sanction, which might involve some
kind of treatment.

The

use of


dependent variables that are measured dichotomously and with official measures of recidivism also may
attenuate the effect size. Thus, Lipsey (1992, 98)


notes that official indicators of delinquency have low reliability because “it is


largely a
matter of chance whether a particular delinquent act eventuates in an


officially recorded contact with an agent of law enforcement or the
juvenile


justice system.”
He calculates that when this fact in taken into account, the


“deattenuated effect
size” f
or the interventions “doubles”

(p. 98).


Through this evidence you can see that retribution is entirely ineffective. . as well as when looking back
to my framework, it is clear that retribution carries far too many negative consequences to be
considered. R
ehabilitation solves for these consequences, particularly recidivism. When we prefer
rehabilitation, we are achieving the best possible
outcomes
, which is the most moral action.


Contention

2:

Rehabiliation

is

the

most

cost

effective

approach.

Kron Writes

2

1

(
Teri Kron

“Prisoner Rehabilition Versus Traditional

Punishment” “http://terikron.wordpress.com/prisoner
-
rehabilition
-
versus
-
traditional
-
punishment/)

Yet
another factor to

consider when it comes
to
rehabi
litation is its cost effectiveness
.


The
Criminal

Justice
Institute reports
that of the

estimated 440,000 individuals convicted of non
-
violent crimes
,

the cost to
jail one inmate for one year is $20,224.65

(Irwin).


A
quick

calculation of these figures adds up to a
staggering $8.9 billion annually.


Rehabilitative efforts

such as the Drug Court Program
reduce these costs to



1

Francis T. Cullen and Paul Gendreau

2000.

[Francis T. Cullen is Distinguished Research Professor of Criminal Justice with the University of Cincinnati. Paul Gendreau i
s Director, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, and Professor of Psychology with the
University of New Brunswick at Saint John].
Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects. POLICIES, PROCESSES, AND DECISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JU
STICE SYSTEM, Vol. 3. Criminal Justice. JS.

2

(
Teri Kron

“Prisoner Rehabilition Ver
sus Traditional

Punishment” “http://terikron.wordpress.com/prisoner
-
rehabilition
-
versus
-
traditional
-
punishment/)

tax
-
payers considerably
.


The estimated cost to imprison one inmate convicted
of a non
-
violent crime i
s met in
contrast with the
estimated $4,300 cost of giving the same individual

drug
treatment

(
Drug Abuse Treatment
).



AND,
Rehab is preferred for youth; most cost effective.

Elizabeth

Owens
-
Schiele.

April

30,

2010.

Sending juveniles in trouble with the law to

neighborhood
programs rather than detention centers is
preferable

to most people in Illinois, who
believe

it's less expensive and more effective,

according to a survey released Friday.


"
The public is looking toward real solutions to youth crime, as opposed to short
-
term retribution or
short
-
term answers that could be far more expensive in the long term," sai
d David Whittaker,
executive director of the Chicago Area Project
, which commissioned the study. "
When kids are locked up in
detention centers, research shows they are not getting the support and help they need to turn their
lives around."


When

looking to

the economic consequences, it is clear that rehabilitation is again the pref
erable
method. It is inexpensive as well as effective, which cannot be said for retribution. When looking to
consequences, the right choice would be to use a system which is cost
effective and benefits society,
which would be rehabilitation.



Contention

3:

THE

PUBLIC

HAS

CONSISTENLY

SHOWN

SUPPORT

FOR

REHABILITATIVE

PROGRAMS


Besides being affordable and effective, the public has also s
hown tremendous support for

rehabilitation
a
bove retribution. Combined with the previous evidence, the only valid choice
for the criminal justice
system
is to value rehabilitation over retribution.


Francis T.
Cullen

[Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology, University of Cincinnati], “It’s Time to
Reaffirm Rehabilitation,” Criminology & Public Policy, 5 (2006): 665

672


To be sure, evidence of punitive attitudes toward offenders was not in short supply. But even
at this
time and in this context,
the public remained supportive of rehabilitation both generally

(Cullen et al.,
1988)
and for juveniles

(Cullen et al., 1983). Over the years, with some modest variation, this finding has
been replicated repeatedly (for a
summary, see Cullen et al., 2000; Cullen and Moon, 2002). In my own
research, my colleagues and I have discovered time and again that
the public favors rehabilitation as a
goal of corrections, believes that treatment is particularly important for juveniles
, and especially
supports early intervention program
s (Applegate et al., 1997; Cullen et al., 1990, 1998; Moon et al.,
2000, 2003; Sundt et al., 1998). To supply just one example, in
a

2001
national survey
, we
discovered
that 80% of the sample thought that

rehabilitation should be the goal of juvenile prisons and that over
9 in 10 favored a range of early intervention programs

(e.g., parental management training, Head Start,
afterschool programs) (Cullen et al., 2002a). I call public support for rehabilitat
ion a “criminological fact”
because over the course of a quarter century, it has been demonstrated in study after study. Just to
reinforce this point again, a 2006 national poll sponsored by the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency found that “by an a
lmost 8 to 1 margin (87% to 11%),
the US voting public is in favor of
rehabilitative services for prisoners as opposed to a punishment
-
only system
” (Krisberg and
Marchionna, 2006:1).


The general public’s agreement that rehabilitation should be preferred c
ements all evidence that
rehabilitation should be valued above retribution. Seeing as that morality is right and ethical behavior,
and recognizing that the outcomes and consequences of rehabilitation are right, ethical, and supportive
of society, makes it
obvious that you should look to the affirmative.