kelsey speech

7/27/2019 Kelsey Speech

1/5

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, in discussing valuable initiative in theprison system, I shall be presenting the societal side of the debate.

Firstly, that this educational and motivational endeavour will create a morecohesive and productive environment in prison communities.

And secondly, I will address the societal attitude towards crime andpunishment.

Before presenting these two substantive points, prisons are, and will alwaysbe challenging environments, filled with sights and sounds that any of ushere present cannot even begin to imagine. This measure is not a magicalpill, which will create a utopian existence in prisons, nor will numbers dropdramatically, but this measure will grant a measureable and significant

change.

Before I am able to continue with my case however, there are some issueswith the Negative teams case that must be addressed.

We have concluded that the points that seem the most arguable areNo. 1.

And No.2.

Their 1st point that _________________________ is incorrect because_________________

An example of this is:

Their 2nd point that _________________________ is incorrectbecause_________________

An example of this is:

Now to my substantive matter


2/5

My first point, is that this change will create a more cohesive andproductive environment in prison communities

Again, we want to point out that education has always been on offer in theprison system, but now, prisoners will start to see a way of getting the thingthat they want most freedom sooner and it is within their reach.

Studies in the Californian prison system, which is noted as being one of themost dangerous and depressing prison environments in the world, changeddramatically when educational undertakings were linked to tangibleprivileges. No, not all prisoners took the offer of this mutually beneficial

arrangement, but a significant number did and violence upon prisonersdecreased, rates of substance abuse decreased and even the atmospherein the holding buildings became notably calmer and more focussed.

Transfer this finding to the debate tonight and it is clear that if you offer aprisoner a tangible reason to self-improve, a discernible number willembrace this opportunity and the flow on will be calmer and safer prisonenvironments. Add to this, the duty of care that the government holds forits prisoners, and it is clear that the prison system will have another tool tocreate safer and more pleasant (if I can use the word) environments.

Let us not forget as well, prison guards who labour daily under extreme and

often dangerous conditions will benefit. No, a utopia will not occur

overnight, or even ever in the future, but we are not aiming at a perfect

prison system but one that can be improved upon and one more conducive

to physical and mental health and safety. The percentage of Prison Guards

who took stress leave in Queensland last year was in one of the highest

brackets of any other occupation. Safe Work Australia, concluded that 64%

were classified as having moderate to high levels of psychological distressbrought on from a highly challenging workplace situation. The percentage

of stress claims has since been increasing steadily since 2002. Under our

model, prison guards can look forward to a safer environment, and the

public purse will benefit since claims for stress related injuries will decrease.

The prison society as a whole, in terms of atmosphere, prison safety and

prison guard mental health will experience a positive change.

My second point addresses community attitude towards crime andpunishment.

The Director General of the then QCSC, in 1998 lamented the prisonsystems out-moded attitude towards crime and punishment. He pointed


3/5

out that we are still firmly entrenched in Victorian values- the throwingaway of the key attitude still prevails. Our model of offering an incentive toprisoners to improve themselves and reduce their prison term, inspiresmuch-needed prison reform debate. The Director General concurred bypointing out, So many commissions, over so many years with so littleorganisational change! Our model addresses the over-arching mindsetand re-enforces the value of education in prisons, which, I hasten to add,has always been on offer, but now needs to be presented in more

acceptable, appealing and modern guise.

The prison system has to, in some way, reflect societys values. We offerclean living conditions, we no longer starve prisoners and we treat them aswe would like to be treated ourselves, albeit locked away and serving asentence for harm done to society. We also, as a society value educationas a potential solution to many of the worlds problems. Why shouldnt weuse education to address issues like despair among the prison population,over-crowding in the system and improvement in the ambiance and

environment. Offering education as an incentive, changes the paradigmand it will in the future, start a whole new crime and punishment discourseas education is used more as a central tool to addressing so many issues.

In summation, Ladies and Gentlemen, we need to reduce prison sentencesin exchange for completion of education qualifications.

Two key points; Firstly, that it creates a more cohesive, calmer community.And secondly, that it will change the societal attitude towards crime.

So in conclusion, We build prisons to hold people we are afraid of, but fillthem with people we are angry at. Lets change the paradigm & puteducation front and centre.

REBUTALLS

They say: We offer education in the prisons already.

WE SAY: A one size fits all approach to education cannot work. Peoplelearn differently and presently there is no way near enough teaching peoplein the prison system. Placing the needs of the individual prisoner at the


4/5

centre of prison education and creating flexibility of provision wouldtherefore be consistent with mainstream education. In order for prisoners todevelop the skills, knowledge and personal qualities necessary to manageeffectively both inside prison and on release, a wide range of differentopportunities that reflect the diverse needs of the prison population isfundamental. Simply offering more of the same in terms of a relativelyinflexible, academically inclined, school-based curriculum will not work. Andthat has implications for education staff, too. The need to recruit and retain

high quality education staff, supported by a structured programme ofcontinuing professional development and a rigorous inspection frameworkwould seem to be integral to ensuring progress.

They Say: Prison sentences are a deterrent. If you do the Crime you do theTime.

WE SAY: The deterrent effect of prison is uniformly overstated. It is

popularly thought that the indignity and strictness of the prisonenvironment will discourage criminal behaviour. Further, exposure to theharsh realities of prison is thought to discourage former inmates from re-offending. These assumptions do not reflect most offenders reasoning, NORdo they reflect the contexts in which most criminal behaviour occurs.Punishment of the type offered by prisons doesnt meet the criteria forreinforcement of behaviour that one would associate with behaviourchange; the punishment happens long after the behaviour, AND IS

THEREFORE FUTILE.

They stated: that Education and Supervision will not reduce recidivism, andthat the best thing to do would be to offer unfair tax credits etc toemployers who hire ex-prisoners, which could be anyone from a terrorist toa murderer to rapists to a drug kingpin.

WE SAY: to both these is 2 fold:

1. No support. My opponent provided no support for this position.2. Counter support provided. I have already provided numerous pieces ofun-refuted evidence about the success of this plan in reducing recidivism.

They said: Actually something my opponent said that is very important:while talking about the causes of recidivism, my opponent painted a nastypicture of horrible financial conditions that drive these people to do thingsthat land them back in prison. And I completely agree.

WE SAY: We believe our opponent left out the part about how most drugtraffickers (the vast majority of those who fall through the safety valve)make much less than minimum wage, and would love to get a minimumwage job. HOWEVER, due to the fact that the safety valve, which was in factmeant to give low level offenders a second chance, puts these people in


5/5

prison, where we throw the Murderers and Rapists. This plan proposes togive them a REAL second chance. By giving them education qualificationand job training, this plan would actually help these people's positions inlife, and hence decrease recidivism further than prison. THANK YOU to ourOpposition for bringing up this important point.

They said: While talking about the causes of recidivism, my opponentpainted a nasty picture of horrible financial conditions that drive thesepeople to do things that land them back in prison. And we completelyagree, IN FACT, WE SAY: our opponent left out the part about how mostdrug traffickers make much less than minimum wage, and would love to geta minimum wage job. However, due to the fact that the safety valve, whichwas in fact meant to give low level offenders a second chance, puts thesepeople in prison, WHERE WE throw the Murderers and Rapists. OUR planproposes to give them a REAL second chance. By giving them educational

qualifications and job training, OUR PLAN would actually help these people'spositions in life, and hence decrease recidivism further than prison.

kelsey speech

Documents