wndi rehab vs retribution

7/23/2019 Wndi Rehab vs Retribution

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wndi-rehab-vs-retribution 1/41

Resolved: Rehabilitation ought

to be valued above retributionin the United States criminal justice system.



Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United Statescriminal justice system............................................................................................... 1

SHORT ESSA..............................................................................................................!

"E#$%$T$O%S............................................................................................................... &

A##$R'AT$(E...............................................................................................................)

Section 1: Sam*le A+rmative ,ase........................................................................-

Section : A+rmative Evidence.............................................................................1/

Rehabilitative 0ustice o2ers Recidivism............................................................11

Retributive 0ustice eads To High 3rison 3o*ulations..........................................1

Retributive 0ustice "oesn4t 5or6........................................................................1!

Rehabilitative 0ustice 7ene8ts (ictims................................................................1&

Rehabilitation Saves O9enders..........................................................................1

Rehabilitation $s ,ost E9ective........................................................................... 1)

%E;AT$(E................................................................................................................. 1-Section 1: Sam*le %egative ,ase..........................................................................1<

Section : %egative Evidence................................................................................1

Retribution $s 3o*ular.........................................................................................

Retribution A =ey 3art O> 3unishment................................................................!

Retribution $s $nherently 0ust..............................................................................&

Rehabilitation Studies Are #la2ed......................................................................

Rehabilitation Undermines 3unishment..............................................................)

Rehabilitation 3rograms "on4t 5or6...................................................................-



SHORT ESSAY This resolution as6s debaters to interrogate an im*ortant element o> domestic

*olicy: the criminal justice system? 2hich includes everything leading u* to thearrest o> a *er*etrator through to their eventual *unishment @o>ten im*risonment?and 2hether or not the driving >ocus o> criminal justice should be retribution orrehabilitation. 7e>ore 2e can begin to com*are the t2o? 2e must 8rst determine2hat each term means and entails 2ithin a system o> la2. Retribution essentiallyre>ers to the *hiloso*hy o> Ban eye >or an eye.C Those 2ho >avor retribution 2ish tosee criminals be *unished *ro*ortionate to the damage they inDicted u*on societyand their victims. Retribution is distinct >rom restraint and deterrence? though ito>ten results in them both. $t is a very natural im*ulse to 2ish to harm an individual2ho brings harm to you? and the *rinci*le o> vengeance has eisted long be>orecodi8ed criminal justice systems. Rehabilitation? on the other hand? is much more2illing to >orgive criminals and instead 2or6s to re>orm them. The goal o>

rehabilitation is to remove the criminal element >rom a criminal and change theminto a >unctioning? hel*>ul member o> society. This not only *rotects society >rom>uture harm? but also adds to society through additional good citiFens. Rehabilitationin the criminal justice system can ta6e many >orms? ranging >rom drug counseling toeducation *rograms to vocational training in ho*es o> *re*aring inmates >or jobs inthe real 2orld. Historically? the U.S. criminal justice system 2as organiFed around*rinci*les o> rehabilitation >rom the early 1G//s until the 1G-/s. Then? in thea>termath o> the (ietnam 5ar and the beginning o> the 5ar on "rugs? and as aresult o> studies sho2ing that rehabilitation 2as unsuccess>ul as a strategy? itbecame *olitically and socially *o*ular to advocate >or a Btough on crimeCa**roach. The shi>t to a retributive model o> justice resulted in soaring incarcerationrates. The United States no2 has the highest incarceration rate o> any nation in the

2orld? 2ith over 1. million inmates in >ederal and state *risons. The majority o>these inmates are young blac6 males? and many o> them are >unctionally illiterate.

This means rehabilitation *rograms 2ould be 2ise to >ocus on basic education*rograms. The *rison *o*ulation also *oorly reDects the demogra*hics outside o>*rison. On the a+rmative? debaters 2ill be 2ell served by stressing that inmates arehumans too? and deserve second chances and the o**ortunity to live a good?*roductive li>e. 'any studies have been *ublished suggesting that rehabilitation isan e9ective tool >or many inmates? and not only reduces recidivism but also is ableto re>orm *risoners into *roductive members o> society. Another *ossibility is to>ocus on the *otential damages o> retributive justice. As the last !/ years have beenthe *urvie2 o> retributive justice? it is not di+cult to 8nd e*erts and *oliticiansarguing that retribution is a Da2ed method o> *unishment. $t leads to high rates o>

recidivism and li6ely does not act as an e9ective deterrent either. 7e ready toe*lain 2hat ty*e o> rehabilitative *rograms you are advocating >or? or at least havesome idea o> ho2 you 2ill >und all o> this as *rograms tend to be very e*ensive inthe short term and negative teams 2ould be 2ise to as6. On the negative? one is8ghting something o> an u*hill battle. An interesting strategy 2ould be to critiuethe usage o> value classi8cations using the *hiloso*hies o> %ietFsche? suggestingthat buying into values causes us to be slaves to dominant morality and removesvalue to li>e. $n a more substantive vein? one should note that the negative needn4t



argue that retribution should be valued above rehabilitation? just that rehabilitationshouldn4t be valued above retribution. Arguing that each should be valued eually2ill allo2 you to steal many o> the *ositive bene8ts o> the a+rmative4s de>ense o>rehabilitation 2hile advocating >or a more balanced system. Then? you need only*rove that retribution is in some 2ay a *ositive *art o> the criminal justice system to2in the debate. Retribution is bene8cial >or a number o> reasons: it is *ublically

*o*ular? it removes criminals4 un>air advantages? and it a+rms that individuals areres*onsible >or their actions.



E!"#"T"O#S;iven that some terms in this debate have di9erent de8nitions outside o> a criminal

justice contet than in the abstract @i.e. rehabilitation? retribution? it is im*ortant tobe very clear in your de8nitions and to *ay close attention to the other side4s inorder to ensure there is no con>usion in the debate round? and your *oint getsacross as you intend it. 7e sure you have a robust e*lanation o> eactly 2hat youmean by rehabilitation and retribution. #ollo2ing are >our terms that can and shouldbe de8ned? >ollo2ed by a discussion o> their usage in the round.

Ought

e$nition: Bused to e*ress justice? moral rightness? or the li6eCSource: "ictionary.com

e$nition: BThat 2hich should be done? the obligatoryI a statement using Jought4?e*ressing a moral im*erativeCSource: O>ord English "ictionary

e$nition: Bused to e*ress obligationCSource: 'erriamK5ebster

iscussion: The meaning o> the term BoughtC does not >reuently change in most" debates? but these di9erent de8nitions can yield very di9erent cases. Thea+rmative on this to*ic should consider choosing the 8rst or second de8nition asthe language is stronger and more easily tie in 2ith a value o> justice or a case thatstresses the moral im*erative o> not subjecting *risoners retribution. The negative

2ill li6ely be better served by the third de8nition as the language is less strong?though sLhe should be able to argue 2ithin either o> the other de8nitions as 2ell.

Rehabilitation

e$nition: to restore to a >ormer state @as o> e+ciency? good management? orsolvencySource: 'erriamK5ebster

e$nition: to restore to a condition o> good health? ability to 2or6? or the li6eSource: "ictionary.com

iscussion: Either o> these de8nitions 2ould 2or6 8ne in the debate round? but it isim*ortant to clari>y eactly 2hat you mean by rehabilitation 2ithin the contet o>debate. That may mean *roviding eam*les o> 2hat rehabilitation *rograms loo6li6e? or ho2 a criminal justice system 2ould go about *roviding more o> theseservices. Have some idea o> 2hat the 2orld 2ill loo6 li6e a>ter your case goes intoe9ect as you 2ill li6ely be as6ed by the other side.



Retribution

e$nition: reuital according to merits or deserts? es*ecially >or evil.Source: "ictionary.com

e$nition: something given or eacted in recom*enseI es*ecially : *unishment

Source: 'erriamK5ebster

iscussion: Again? either o> these de8nitions 2ould 2or6 8ne? but you shouldclari>y 2hat retribution means 2ithin the contet o> the criminal justice system.E*lain that retribution means a >ocus on *unishment. $t may be hel*>ul to de8nerehabilitation and retribution? then discuss the t2o in o**osition to each other >orclarity.

Criminal justice system

e$nition: a series o> organiFations involved in a**rehending? *rosecuting?

de>ending? sentencing? and jailing those involved in crimes K including la2en>orcement? attorneys? judges? courts o> la2? *risonsSource: "ictionary.com

iscussion: This de8nition may not be entirely necessary? but it is im*ortant tonote that the criminal justice system encom*asses more than just the *risonsystem? and includes all elements o> the arrest? trial? and incarceration *rocesses.



A!!"R%AT"&E



Section ': Sam(le A)rmative *aseHello ladies and gentlemen. $ 2ould li6e to begin by etending a uic6 round o>than6 you4s to all involved. Today 2e are debating the resolution: Resolved:

Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United Statescriminal justice system. 7e>ore *resenting my value? criterion? and contentions? $2ill clari>y a >e2 o> the 6ey terms in today4s debate.

$ de8ne BoughtC as used to e*ress justice? moral rightness? or the li6e? and criminal justice system as a series o> organiFations involved in a**rehending? *rosecuting?de>ending? sentencing? and jailing those involved in crimes K including la2en>orcement? attorneys? judges? courts o> la2? *risonsRehabilitation and retribution have distinct meanings 2ithin the criminal justicesystem. Rehabilitation re>ers to a system o> justice 2hose *rimary goal is to re>orma criminal into a >unctional member o> society. Retribution is *erha*s best de8nedby the aiom Ban eye >or an eye?C that is to say? the *ur*ose o> retribution is to

enact *unishment on an individual in *ro*ortion to the 2rong they have committed.

&alue: humanitarianism'y value >or today4s debate round is humanitarianism. $ believe the only 2ay >orsociety to *rogress *eace>ully is >or every individual to *ut a *ersonal em*hasis onhumanitarianism. 5hichever team best u*holds an attitude that *ro>esses? 2ithinreason? understanding and com*assion >or their >ello2 man should 2in this debate.

This is es*ecially true on this to*ic? as 2e are discussing the treatment o> livingindividuals.

*riterion: utilitarianism'y criterion >or this debate round is utilitarianism? essentially? costKbene8t analysis.

5hichever team is able to *rovide the greatest amount o> good >or the greatestnumber o> *eo*le should 2in this debate round.

*ontention ': Retributive +ustice oesn,t -or #or >ar too long? this country has been loc6ed in an outdated mindset that es*ousesthe bene8ts o> retributive justice. $n the 1G-/s? a major shi>t in the criminal justicesystem occurred? s2itching a2ay >rom rehabilitation to2ards a toughKonKcrimestance. This has resulted in a massive increase in *rison *o*ulations and noreduction in the crime rate:

Etienne /enson? 'onitor Sta9? 0uly 0112BRehabilitate or 3unishMC American 3sychological Association (olume !&? %o. -? *.&) htt*:LL222.a*a.orgLmonitorLjulaug/!Lrehab.as*Until the mid3'451s6 rehabilitation 7as a ey (art o8 U.S. (rison (olicy. 3risoners 2ere encouraged to develo* occu*ational s6ills and to resolve*sychological *roblemsKKsuch as substance abuse or aggressionKKthat mightinter>ere 2ith their reintegration into society. $ndeed? many inmates received courtsentences that mandated treatment >or such *roblems. Since then? ho2ever?rehabilitation has taen a bac seat to a 9get tough on crime9 a((roach that sees *unishment as *risonNs main >unction? says Haney. The a((roach has



created e(losive gro7th in the (rison (o(ulation6 7hile having at most amodest e;ect on crime rates. As a result6 the United States no7 has morethan 0 million (eo(le in (risons or jails33the e<uivalent o8 one in every '=0U.S. residents33and another 8our to $ve million (eo(le on (robation or(arole. A higher (ercentage o8 the (o(ulation is involved in the criminal

justice system in the United States than in any other develo(ed country.

$t is clearly time >or a change. The current model o> *rison system is destructive. $tcreates more crime than it *revents? as it cro2ds more and more *eo*le into anenvironment that should be reserved >or the very 2orst among us. $nstead? it allo2sthese J2orst4 *eo*le to mingle 2ith those 2ho could be re>ormed and allo2s thelatter to learn additional criminal tactics and behaviors. This causes the American*ublic to label all *risoners as unsavory elements o> society? to be loc6ed a2ay and>orgotten. 7ut these *risoners come bac6 out into society? and do even moredamage? as the majority o> *risoners 2ill reKo9end. This does not servehumanitarian ends? it only serves to brea6 do2n communities and create victims.

*ontention 0: Rehabilitation >o7ers Recidivismuc6ily? there is another 2ay. #ocusing the criminal justice system on rehabilitation

2ill allo2 the American *ublic? and its criminal justice system? to see *risoners as*eo*le? not monsters? and allo2 them to success>ully reintegrate into society as*roductive members. $n rehabilitation *rograms? *risoners are able to learn ne2s6ills that 2ill let them get jobs so 2hen they are released >rom *rison? they do notneed to return to a li>e o> crime. $n %or2ay? 2hen the *rison system shi>ted torehabilitative justice? the decline in recidivism 2as 2ho**ing

5illiam ee Adams? Time Re*orter? 'ay 1/ 01'1B%or2ay 7uilds the 5orldNs 'ost Humane 3rison?C Time 'agaFinehtt*:LL222.time.comLtimeLmagaFineLarticleL/?G1-1?1G<)//?//.htmliFF1P3u21n$Halden? #or7ay?s second largest (rison? 2ith a ca*acity o> inmates? o*enedon A*ril <. $t embodies the guiding (rinci(les o8 the country?s (enal system:that re(ressive (risons do not 7or and that treating (risoners humanelyboosts their chances o8 reintegrating into society. Q5hen they arrive? many o> them are in bad sha*e?Q Hoidal says? noting that Halden houses drug dealers?murderers and ra*ists? among others. Q5e 2ant to build them u*? give themcon8dence through education and 2or6 and have them leave as better *eo*le.Q*ountries trac recidivism rates di;erently6 but even an im(er8ectcom(arison suggests the #or7egian model 7ors. -ithin t7o years o8their release6 01@ o8 #or7ay?s (risoners end u( bac in jail. "n the U..and the U.S.6 the $gure hovers bet7een B1@ and C1@.

This model could easily be >ollo2ed in the United States. o2er recidivism meansless *eo*le committing crimes? 2hich means less danger to the sa>ety o> theAmerican *eo*le. Additionally? rehabilitation has the ability to bene8t communitiesby adding *roductive members



0ohn Hayes? 7ritish 'inister o> State "e*artment >or 7usiness $nnovation and

S6ills? and ,ris*in /lunt? Undersecretary o> State "e*artment o> 0ustice? 'ay

01''B'a6ing 3risons 5or6: S6ills #or Rehabilitation?C 'inistry o> 0ustice Re*ort?htt*:LL222.bis.gov.u6LassetsLbiscoreL>urtherKeducationKs6illsLdocsLmL11K<<Kma6ingK

*risonsK2or6Ks6illsK>orKrehabilitation.*d> As the changes to the 2ay *risoners 2or6 come on stream? they 2ill bring majoro**ortunities. A (rison that is a (lace o8 7or and industry 7ill instil ino;enders the disci(lines o8 7oring li8e: order6 timeee(ing6 7oring todeadlines6 being managed and overseen. These are sills that em(loyers7ant 8or they com(rise the elements o8 res(onsibility 7hich mae livesnormal. -hen allied to vocational sills6 e3o;enders 7ho have gainedthese Dli8e3sills, the 8abric o8 res(onsibility 3 become more attractive(otential em(loyees and better husbands6 (arents6 neighbours and8riends.

This serves humanitarian ends by building communities and reducing crime rates.

*ontention 2: rehabilitation is cost e;ective'any o**onents o> rehabilitation argue that it is *rohibitively e*ensive. This isuntrue. 5hat $S *rohibitively e*ensive is the current system? because not only do*risoners need to be arrested? *rocessed? and held once? the majority o> them comethrough the system t2o? three? or >our times. This *uts a massive burden onta*ayers. A study in 7ritain sho2ed massive savings *ossible by shi>ting torehabilitative *rograms

0ohn Hayes? 7ritish 'inister o> State "e*artment >or 7usiness $nnovation and


01''B'a6ing 3risons 5or6: S6ills #or Rehabilitation?C 'inistry o> 0ustice Re*ort?htt*:LL222.bis.gov.u6LassetsLbiscoreL>urtherKeducationKs6illsLdocsLmL11K<<Kma6ingK*risonsK2or6Ks6illsK>orKrehabilitation.*d> ReKo9ending blights lives and communities? as 2ell as carrying signi8cant social andeconomic costs: the #ational Audit O)ce assessed the cost o8 re3o;endingby recent (risoners in 011531F as bet7een G4.B billion and G'2 billion ayear. Around hal> o> all crime is committed by *eo*le 2ho have already beenconvicted o> a criminal o9ence. $m*roving the s6ills o> o9enders? >ocussed on thereuirements o> real jobs? is critical to reducing reKo9ending? alongside addressingother >actors that drive crime such as substance misuse? mental health issues? *ooraccommodation? >amily issues and *overty. Evidence sho7s that (risoneducation and vocational interventions (roduce a net bene$t to the (ublicsector ranging 8rom G06111 to G0F6111 (er o;ender or 8rom G'16B11 toG456111 (er o;ender 7hen victim costs are includedI: 7e are determinedto secure those savings 8or the (ublic (urse.

These savings could be *ut into other *rograms? such as schools or health care? that2ould bene8t humanitarian aims o> communities >ar more than incarceration.



7ecause retribution sim*ly doesn4t 2or6? rehabilitation o9ers an e9ective secondchance >or o9enders and is cost e9ective? $ urge an a+rmative ballot in today4sdebate.



Section 0: A)rmative Evidence



Rehabilitative +ustice >o7ers Recidivism

#or7ay,s Rehabilitation !ocus >eads to >o7 Recidivism5illiam ee Adams? Time Re*orter? 'ay 1/ 01'1

B%or2ay 7uilds the 5orldNs 'ost Humane 3rison?C Time 'agaFinehtt*:LL222.time.comLtimeLmagaFineLarticleL/?G1-1?1G<)//?//.htmliFF1P3u21n$Halden? #or7ay?s second largest (rison? 2ith a ca*acity o> inmates? o*enedon A*ril <. $t embodies the guiding (rinci(les o8 the country?s (enal system:that re(ressive (risons do not 7or and that treating (risoners humanelyboosts their chances o8 reintegrating into society. Q5hen they arrive? many o> them are in bad sha*e?Q Hoidal says? noting that Halden houses drug dealers?murderers and ra*ists? among others. Q5e 2ant to build them u*? give themcon8dence through education and 2or6 and have them leave as better *eo*le.Q*ountries trac recidivism rates di;erently6 but even an im(er8ectcom(arison suggests the #or7egian model 7ors. -ithin t7o years o8

their release6 01@ o8 #or7ay?s (risoners end u( bac in jail. "n the U..and the U.S.6 the $gure hovers bet7een B1@ and C1@.

*om(rehensive Revie7 o8 %etaanalyses *on$rms Rehab>o7ers Recidivism#rancis T. *ullen? "istinguished Research 3ro>essor o> ,riminal 0ustice 2ith the

University o> ,incinnati? and 3aul Jendreau? "irector? ,entre >or ,riminal 0ustice

Studies? 0111.BAssessing ,orrectional Rehabilitation: 3olicy? 3ractice? and 3ros*ects?C ,riminal

0ustice? htt*:LLlearn.uci.eduLmediaLS3/)LGG/1LAssess/Rehab/,ullen//!d.*d> osel has conducted the most com*rehensive assessment o> the metaanalyses o>o9ender rehabilitation *rograms. "n a revie7 o8 '2 meta3analyses (ublishedbet7een '4FB and '44B6 >osel 8ound that the mean e;ect siKe ranged8rom a lo7 o8 1.1B to a high o8 1.'F. This 8nding has been con8rmed in anu*dated revie2 by Redondo? SancheFK'eca? and ;arrido. The consistency o8 the(ositive e;ect o8 treatment in these meta3analyses is im(ortant because itsuggests that this result6 at least in broad terms6 is not de(endent on thesam(le o8 studies selected and coding decisions made by individualauthors. $ndeed? even metaKanalyses conducted by scholars unsym*athetic torehabilitation *roduced *ositive e9ects @see 5hitehead and ab 1G<G. oselestimates that across all the metaKanalyses? Bthe mean e9ect siFe o> all assessedstudies *robably has a siFe o> about /.1/C. Using Rosenthal4s 7ES" statistic? this7ould mean that the recidivism rate 8or the treatment grou( 7ould be =B(ercent6 7hile the rate 8or the control grou( 7ould be BB (ercent.

#o Evidence Rehabilitation oesn,t -or #rancis T. *ullen? "istinguished Research 3ro>essor o> ,riminal 0ustice 2ith the


Studies? 0111.



BAssessing ,orrectional Rehabilitation: 3olicy? 3ractice? and 3ros*ects?C ,riminal 0ustice? htt*:LLlearn.uci.eduLmediaLS3/)LGG/1LAssess/Rehab/,ullen//!d.*d> "n all cases6 a (ositive e;ect siKe 7as re(orted. There 2as a tendency?ho2ever? >or the treatment e9ect siFe >or o9ender interventions to be lo2er thanthat >or interventions targeting other outcomes >or change. The lo2er e9ect siFe

may reDect the di+culty o> changing antisocial conduct andLor the lo2er uality o>interventions 2ith o9enders. Still6 it is instructive to reiterate that everymeta3analysis o8 o;ender treatment indicated that (rograms6 in theaggregate6 reduced (roblem behavior. As such6 there is no evidence thato;enders cannot be rehabilitated.



Retributive +ustice >eads To High LrisonLo(ulations

Retribution S7itch "ncreased Lo(ulations

Etienne /enson? 'onitor Sta9? 0uly 0112BRehabilitate or 3unishMC American 3sychological Association (olume !&? %o. -? *.&) htt*:LL222.a*a.orgLmonitorLjulaug/!Lrehab.as*Until the mid3'451s6 rehabilitation 7as a ey (art o8 U.S. (rison (olicy. 3risoners 2ere encouraged to develo* occu*ational s6ills and to resolve*sychological *roblemsKKsuch as substance abuse or aggressionKKthat mightinter>ere 2ith their reintegration into society. $ndeed? many inmates received courtsentences that mandated treatment >or such *roblems. Since then? ho2ever?rehabilitation has taen a bac seat to a 9get tough on crime9 a((roach that sees *unishment as *risonNs main >unction? says Haney. The a((roach hascreated e(losive gro7th in the (rison (o(ulation6 7hile having at most amodest e;ect on crime rates. As a result6 the United States no7 has more

than 0 million (eo(le in (risons or jails33the e<uivalent o8 one in every '=0U.S. residents33and another 8our to $ve million (eo(le on (robation or(arole. A higher (ercentage o8 the (o(ulation is involved in the criminal

justice system in the United States than in any other develo(ed country.

Retribution O8ten >eads To Jreater +uvenile elin<uency5illiam /radsha7? 3h" University o> 'innesota? and "avid Roseborough6'S5 University o> St. Thomas "ecember 011B BRestorative 0ustice "ialogue: The$m*act o> 'ediation and ,on>erencing on 0uvenile Recidivism?C #ederal 3robation

0ournal (olume )G %o. Traditionally? the juvenile justice system in the United States has been dominatedby t2o di9erent a**roaches in res*onding to juvenile o9enses? the retributive

justice model and the rehabilitation or treatment model. The retributive modelde$nes a juvenile o;ense as a crime against the state and the state(rovides suitable (unishment to the o;ender. The assum(tion o8 theretributive model is that (unishment 7ill deter 8uture o;enses. Ho7ever6the retributive model o8ten creates situations that increase the lielihoodo8 8urther delin<uent activity. The juvenile o9ender is also at high ris6 o>lo2ered educational and occu*ational o**ortunities and delinuent behavior is astrong *redictor that the o9ender himsel> 2ill be victimiFed.

Retribution "ncreases >ielihood O8 RecidivismRuss !ry? retired *robation o+cer and residential counselor? 01'1B5hat $s ,orrections #orM 7ac6 To 7asics?C %ational $nstitute o> ,orrections? 222.community.nicic.gov#urthermore? research suggests that it is not the severity o8 the (enaltyinvolved that creates deterrence in o;enders6 it is the (erce(tion o87hether they 7ill be caught or not that s7ings their decision. Severe(unishment does not reduce crime through a deterrence e;ect. $n >act: B$nbrie>? i> the ty*e and severity o> o+cial *unishment has any e9ect on recidivism? it



a**ears to be that less is better than more.C @Andre2s? ".? 7onta? 0. 7ut? 2hatabout *unishment as a sanction >or the violations o> correctional rules. "oes that2or6 as a deterrentM 5hat the emerging research sho2s is that s2i>t? certain?consistent and shortKterm sanctions increase rule com*liance. Harsher sanctions6on the other hand6 increase com(liance tem(orarily6 but tend to result inan escalation in violations6 as 7ell as increase the lielihood o8 eventual

recidivism .



Retributive +ustice oesn,t -or

Retribution oesn,t eter *riminalsHal S(erling? chairman o> the ,rime and 0ustice Re>orm ,ommittee in Australia?

0une &th

01'1BRetribution a >ailed strategy in cutting crime?C The Australian 2ith The 5all Street 0ournalhtt*:LL222.theaustralian.com.auLbusinessLlegalKa9airsLretributionKaK>ailedKstrategyKinKcuttingKcrimeLstoryKe)>rgG-K1<-!/)-$m*rison P >or harming and 2hat have you achieved i> all you get out o> it isretributionM The satis>action o> retributive sentiment? yes? but M6 on the stats6 7illbe a((rehended 8or another jailable o;ence 7ithin t7o years or so o8 theirrelease. Their im(risonment 7ill have done very little6 i8 anything6 to maethe community sa8er. $t may have done more harm than good in the long run. Andat huge cost more than N516111 a year? not counting the ca*ital cost o>*risons. $t seems retribution does not have such a hold on (eo(le as may

have been thought. Studies in 7ritain indicate that *eo*le are much moreinterested in having a >air and trans*arent criminal justice system? and in o9endersma6ing recom*ense? than they are in *unishment. An etensive and visiblecommunity service *rogram 2ould go a long 2ay to2ards satis>ying suche*ectations. A moment?s thought is su)cient to no7 that a heavierregime o8 sentencing maes no di;erence in deterring the (ros(ectiveo;ender. -hat o;ender 7ould no7 that the liely (enalty 8orhousebreaing or stealing a car 7ould6 in their case6 be 8our years in jailrather than t7o years6 (articularly 7ith F1 (er cent o8 crime being alcohol3or drug3related

*ali8ornia,s !ailure to Sto( *rime a Result o8 Retribution

Erich -ilson6 a2 Student at %orth2estern ,ali>ornia University? 01'1 BRevolving "oor and the Recidivist K ,ommentary on the ,ali>ornia 0ustice System?CEFinearticles.comhtt*:LLeFinearticles.comLMRevolvingK"oorKandKtheKRecidivistKKK,ommentaryKonKtheK,ali>orniaK0usticeKSystemid&/1)-&A vast number o> crimes are committed by a small number o> >elons 6no2n ascareer criminals. *ali8ornia studies have suggested that C1@ o8 (ersonsarrested 8or robbery have a (rior 8elony conviction. $t has been theoriFed thatSection ))- o> the ,ali>ornia 3enal ,ode is not in harmony 2ith the generallyacce*ted su**osition o> *unishment under the rehabilitation theoryI there>ore?*ali8ornia?s system o8 la7 and order hinders rather than aids theassimilation o8 the recidivist bac into society. *ali8ornia?s e(ansive

8ailure in (reventing 8urther criminal activity 8rom re(eat o;enders can bedirectly attributed to the system o8 justice based on the retributive theorycurrently in (lace.

Jet3Tough Lolicies Em(irically !ail'ichael S. Jelaca ? >ormer (ice ,hairman o> the United States Sentencing

,ommission? 0111



BRetribution #ails Reality Test?C RaFor2ire 0anL#eb ///htt*:LL222.november.orgLraFor2ireLrFoldL1)L1)//1.html

The sad reality is that even in the >ace o> this >antastic economic *ros*erity6 7ehave more (eo(le involved 7ith drugs than 7e did 7hen 7e institutedthese draconian sentences. That is a sim*le >act. There is nothing ne7 aboutget3tough (olicies. -e have tried all this be8ore and only to 7atch it 8ail3

just as it has today. The only thing 7e are succeeding at is incarceratinggreater numbers o8 our citiKens.



Rehabilitative +ustice /ene$ts &ictims

Restorative +ustice Re(airs /reach "n %oral Trust Tom O,*onnor? "octor? August !1st 01'1

BRetributive and Restorative 0ustice?C 'egain6s in ,riminal 0usticehtt*:LLdrtomoconnor.comL!!//L!!//lect/!b.htmA more salient issue is ho7 much su((ort can a victim e(ect 8rom thecriminal justice systemM As 2eNve seen? the retributivist a**roach to criminalo9enders is to sim*ly *unish them and leave 2hatever regret or remorse is theirsu* to them. A restorative a((roach 7ould see 8or the o;ender to achieveregret or remorse6 and this is (recisely the (oint at 7hich retribution endsand restorative justice begins. Lutting victims $rst6 or taing victim?srights seriously6 re<uires restorative justice. Retribution can only go so >ar?and might only justi>y limited victim assistance services @such as *olice escorts tocourt or *olice sensitivity training. $n the etreme? retributivism might su**ort?albeit reluctantly? victim com*ensation *rograms. Restorative justice usually

re<uires the o;ender and victim con8ront one another in some 7ay as 7ellas see that the victims obtains some com(ensation or means o8 beingmae 97hole9 again. The 7hole idea o8 restorative justice is to re(air thebreach in moral trust and establish lasting (eace instead o8 lasting hurt6regret6 or conPict.

Rehabilitation /ene$ts *ommunities3eter Raynor? 3ro>essor o> ,riminology and ,riminal 0ustice at S2ansea University?

and ;2en Robinson? Senior ecturer in ,riminal 0ustice at She+eld University?

0114B5hy Hel* O9endersM Arguments >or Rehabilitation as a 3enal Strategy?C Euro*ean

0ournal o> 3robation (olume 1 %o. 1 htt*:LL222.ej*rob.roLu*loadsroL)--L3R;R.*d> Such a**roaches are associated *articularly 2ith advocates o> restorative justice2ho believe that reintegrative (rocesses can hel( o;enders to atone 8or ormae re(aration 8or their o;ences at the same time as hel(ing o;endersand victims to learn something o8 each other. The aim is the restoration orestablishment o> social bonds that 2ill both o;er the o;ender membershi( o8 acommunity and conse<uently strengthen in8ormal controls over his or herbehaviour. 5hilst some o> these ideas are more usually >ound in discussions o>restorative justice rather than rehabilitation? the >act that o;enders involved inrestorative (rocedures are meant to learn a social lesson 7hich 7illinPuence their 8uture behaviour? *laces them also under the heading o>rehabilitation.

E3O;enders Jain >i8e Sills 0ohn Hayes? 7ritish 'inister o> State "e*artment >or 7usiness $nnovation and


01''



B'a6ing 3risons 5or6: S6ills #or Rehabilitation?C 'inistry o> 0ustice Re*ort?htt*:LL222.bis.gov.u6LassetsLbiscoreL>urtherKeducationKs6illsLdocsLmL11K<<Kma6ingK*risonsK2or6Ks6illsK>orKrehabilitation.*d> As the changes to the 2ay *risoners 2or6 come on stream? they 2ill bring majoro**ortunities. A (rison that is a (lace o8 7or and industry 7ill instil ino;enders the disci(lines o8 7oring li8e: order6 timeee(ing6 7oring to

deadlines6 being managed and overseen. These are sills that em(loyers7ant 8or they com(rise the elements o8 res(onsibility 7hich mae livesnormal. -hen allied to vocational sills6 e3o;enders 7ho have gainedthese Dli8e3sills, the 8abric o8 res(onsibility 3 become more attractive(otential em(loyees and better husbands6 (arents6 neighbours and8riends.



Rehabilitation Saves O;enders

Ha7aiian Lrison System -ould /ene$t !rom Rehabilitationorenn -aler? re*orter? "ecember 1st 0114

BRehabilitation saves lives? money?C Honolulu Advertiserhtt*:LLthe.honoluluadvertiser.comLarticleL//GL"ecL1Lo*Lha2aiiG11/!/&.htmlOur *rison system >aces a crisis and 2astes not only 8nancial but human resources.Our current $nancial crisis could be used to im(rove our economy6 as 7ellas our community?s 7ell being6 by 7oring to rehabilitate im(risoned(eo(le and heal victims o8 crime. *urrent recidivism data sho7 that (eo(le7ho serve their entire sentence in our state (risons have higherrecidivism rates than (eo(le on (arole or (robation. About )/ *ercent o> the*eo*le in *rison 2ho serve their 2hole sentence are bac6 in *rison or rearrested2ithin three years? 2hile *eo*le *aroled and on *robation have a recidivism rate o>about / *ercent. The recidivism rate 8or 8ederally su(ervised (robationersis signi$cantly lo7er than the state?s rate. Ha7ai?i?s chie8 8ederal

(robation o)cer6 Rich *ra78ord6 says the lo7er 8ederal rate is (robablybecause 8ederal (robation o)ces receive 8unding 9to su((ort assessment6treatment and rehabilitation9 related to substance abuse6 mental health6and se o;enses.

Rehabilitation /uilds Strong *ommunity %embers6 >o7ersRecidivismOrson Aguilar? >ormer inmate and re*orter? #ebruary 1<th 01'1B3rison Rehab Saved 'e?C San #rancisco ,hroniclehtt*:LL222.greenlining.orgLne2sLinKtheKne2sL/1/L*risonKrehabKsavedKmeRehabilitation (rograms 7or. A study o8 22 educational6 vocational and

7or (rograms 8or (risoners (ublished in 0111 in the +ournal o8 Researchin *rime and elin<uency 8ound that (artici(ants 7ere more than 01(ercent less liely to re3o;end than non3(artici(ants. 3rison drug treatment*rograms have similar success rates. Every (risoner 7ho is hel(ed to becomea (roductive citiKen e<uals saved ta dollars and innocent members o8 thecommunity 7ho 7on,t become crime victims. 7ut 7e don,t have nearlyenough o8 these (rograms6 even be8ore the ne7 budget cuts. A //G grand

jury re*ort on the ,ali>ornia State 3rison V Solano in (acaville 8ound Qa long list o8 inmates 7aiting to get into Lrison "ndustry Authority (rograms that(rovide 7or e(erience (risoners 7ho 7ant hel( (re(aring 8orlegitimate jobs6 but 7ho aren,t receiving it. As a result? ,ali>ornia *risonershave the nation4s highest recidivism rate: -/ *ercent? more than t2ice the rate o>

%e2 or6.

ansas *ity Lrogram Saved O;enders6 !orces Them To TaeRes(onsibilitye2is uguid? re*orter? 0une 01'0B3rogram hel*s *risoners turn their lives around?C =ansas ,ity Starhtt*:LLvoices.6ansascity.comLentriesL*rogramKhel*sK*risonersKturnKtheirKlivesKaroundL



/urton6 7ho emceed the gathering last month and (lans to study at St.Laul,s School o8 Theology6 7as among the men 7ho stressed the(rogram,s three cost savings: "t e(t e3o;enders 8rom returning to(rison6 saved the state the cost o8 their re3incarceration and it (reventedsociety 8rom having to care 8or ne7 victims. The "ntensive Thera(eutic*ommunity 7ors because it isolates the men 8rom the rest o8 the

(o(ulation6 adds regime and disci(line to their day6 8orces the men to taeo7nershi( 8or their (roblems and those that they caused6 and treats theircriminal mentality as much as their addiction.



Rehabilitation "s *ost E;ective

*ali8ornia *ould Save %illions -ith Rehab Lrograms%ancy &ogel? Times Sta9 5riter? 0une /th 0115

BRehab in *rison can cut costs? re*ort says?C A Timeshtt*:LLarticles.latimes.comL//-LjunL!/LlocalLmeK*risons!/Until *ali8ornia eases (rison overcro7ding6 it can?t slo7 the revolving(rison doors that return roughly 51@ o8 8reed inmates 7ithin a year?national e*erts re*orted to the egislature on #riday. Their analysis o> 2hy,ali>ornia is among the 2orst in the nation at 6ee*ing eKconvicts out o> *risonconcludes that jam3(aced conditions (revent (rison o)cials 8rom o;eringdrug and alcohol addiction treatment6 anger management classes and jobtraining 33 ste(s to hel( ee( 8elons 8rom committing more crimes.WXY "8*ali8ornia 7ere to 8ollo7 all o8 the re(ort?s recommendations6 according tothe authors6 the state could eventually save bet7een NBC' million andNCF= million a year on a reduced inmate (o(ulation. *ali8ornia e(artment

o8 *orrections and Rehabilitation irector +ames Tilton embraced the re*ort.He says that he doesnNt have the money in his budget to do all it suggests but thathe intends to launch *ilot *rograms in a >e2 *risons to *rove that targetedrehabilitation *rograms 2or6. The (ublic assumes6 Tilton said6 that 9inmatesgo to (rison6 they sit on a bun out in the desert some7here and nevercome bac.9 9That?s not the 8acts69 he said. 9Leo(le come bac. Over 41@o8 these inmates come bac to communities.... And 7e can do a better

job.9

/ritish Studies Sho7 %ajor Savings !rom Education "n Lrisons 0ohn Hayes? 7ritish 'inister o> State "e*artment >or 7usiness $nnovation and


01''B'a6ing 3risons 5or6: S6ills #or Rehabilitation?C 'inistry o> 0ustice Re*ort?htt*:LL222.bis.gov.u6LassetsLbiscoreL>urtherKeducationKs6illsLdocsLmL11K<<Kma6ingK*risonsK2or6Ks6illsK>orKrehabilitation.*d> ReKo9ending blights lives and communities? as 2ell as carrying signi8cant social andeconomic costs: the #ational Audit O)ce assessed the cost o8 re3o;endingby recent (risoners in 011531F as bet7een G4.B billion and G'2 billion ayear. Around hal> o> all crime is committed by *eo*le 2ho have already beenconvicted o> a criminal o9ence. $m*roving the s6ills o> o9enders? >ocussed on thereuirements o> real jobs? is critical to reducing reKo9ending? alongside addressingother >actors that drive crime such as substance misuse? mental health issues? *ooraccommodation? >amily issues and *overty. Evidence sho7s that (rison

education and vocational interventions (roduce a net bene$t to the (ublicsector ranging 8rom G06111 to G0F6111 (er o;ender or 8rom G'16B11 toG456111 (er o;ender 7hen victim costs are includedI: 7e are determinedto secure those savings 8or the (ublic (urse.



*osts o8 elin<uent Youth %inimiKed#rancis T. *ullen? "istinguished Research 3ro>essor o> ,riminal 0ustice 2ith the


Studies? 0111.BAssessing ,orrectional Rehabilitation: 3olicy? 3ractice? and 3ros*ects?C ,riminal

0ustice? htt*:LLlearn.uci.eduLmediaLS3/)LGG/1LAssess/Rehab/,ullen//!d.*d> "n short6 7hen lum(ed together6 interventions reduced criminalinvolvement and 7hen the Qbest (rograms 7ere singled out6 the crimesavings 7ere substantial. According to >i(sey and -ilson6 the reduction inrecidivism is Qan accom(lishment o8 considerable (ractical value in termso8 the e(ense and social damage associated 7ith the delin<uent behavioro8 these juveniles.



#EJAT"&E



Section ': Sam(le #egative *aseHello ladies and gentlemen? $ 2ould li6e to begin by than6ing my o**onent and the

judge >or being here today. $ am here to negate the resolution: Resolved:

Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United Statescriminal justice system. 7e>ore $ *resent my value? criterion? and contentions? $have a >e2 2ords o> resolutional analysis.

The debate resolution clearly reads that rehabilitation ought to be valued aboveretribution. $t is there>ore the burden o> the a+rmative to *rove that rehabilitation ismore valuable than retribution. $t is not the negative4s burden to *rove the reverseis true? only to *rove that rehabilitation should not be valued above retribution. $ntoday4s debate round? $ 2ill argue that both rehabilitation and retribution arevaluable com*onents o> the criminal justice system? and neither should besacri8ced >or the other as the a+rmative suggests.

&alue: +ustice'y value in today4s debate round is justice. At the core o> the *rinci*le o> justice isthe idea that every individual should be meted out his or her just deserts. 5hen anindividual chooses to brea6 a la2? they are violating codi8ed moral standardsagreed u*on by society. $t is only just that they receive some >orm o> *unishment >ortheir actions.

*riterion: Utilitarianism'y criterion in today4s debate round is utilitarianism. 5hichever debater can*rovide the greatest amount o> good to the greatest number o> *eo*le through theirvalue should 2in this debate round.

*ontention ': Rehabilitation undermines (unishment5hen one violates a la2? it is e*ected and correct that they be *unished. A systembased entirely on rehabilitation removes *ersonal res*onsibility >rom the criminal byassuming there is something 2rong 2ith them that needs to be BcuredC by the stateso they can return to society as >ully >unctioning individuals. This removes anydisincentive to commit crimes? as criminals 6no2 they 2ill enter into a *rogram2here they are taught ne2 s6ills and learn ne2 things. $t is im*ortant to have someelements o> retribution in any *rison system to *rovide this deterrent and rein>orcethat 2hat criminals did 2as 2rong. Rehabilitation also stri*s individuals o> theirautonomy? only retribution allo2s *eo*le to be res*onsible >or 2hat they did:

,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> As *unishment? im*risonment conveys an im*ortant cultural message? but i8 theo)cial mission o8 a (rison is de$ned simultaneously as both (unishment



and rehabilitation conPicting and con8using messages are transmittedboth inside and outside the (rison 7alls. "nside the 7alls6 such a de$nitionconveys a message o8 rights 7ithout res(onsibility. -hen a (rison systemis mandated in its mission statement to attem(t rehabilitation? or evenmerely to *rovide o**ortunities and resources >or sel>Kim*rovement? that mandatecreates 8or inmates a legitimate claim a rightI to (ersonally bene$cial

services. At the same time? it undermines inmates? accountability by de$ningthem6 lie children6 as insu)ciently develo(ed and disadvantaged (ersons8or 7hose 8uture behavior society must tae some res(onsibility . 5hereasim*risonment as *unishment de8nes inmates as res*onsible >or their *ast behavior?and 2hereas disci*line 2ithin *rison de8nes inmates as accountable >or theircurrent behavior? rehabilitation as a goal o8 the system de$nes inmates asnot 8ully res(onsible 8or their 8uture behavior.

Rehabilitation teaches a *risoner that it is really the >ault o> society that they turnedout the 2ay they did. 'ore structure than that is needed? and >or that $ urge that

justice be served and retribution be included eually in the *rison system.

*ontention 0: Rehabilitation oesn,t -or Rehabilitation? 2hile it sounds good? sim*ly 2on4t 2or6 on the broad scale that thea+rmative advocates. The majority? i> not all? o> the studies they uote es*ousingthe bene8ts o> rehabilitation are measuring recidivism a>ter (OU%TARrehabilitation *rograms. 5hen the entire system >avors rehabilitation? it meansevery inmate 2ill be brought through a rehabilitation *rogram? not just those 2hohave already chosen the *ath o> re>ormation. This 2ill s6e2 recidivism statistics andcon>er bene8ts on individuals 2ho have no desire to actually re>orm. Additionally?rehabilitation *rograms >ail to target the root cause o> crime:

0ohn "el Rosario? re*orter? August 11th 01'1B"iagnosing crime: The >ailures o> rehabilitation in the justice system?C7orderFine.com htt*:LLborderFine.comL/1/L/<LdiagnosingKcrimeKtheK>ailuresKo>KrehabilitationKinKtheKjusticeKsystemL,orteF? !? is a rare ece*tion to rehabilitation. ,urrently bac6 in El 3aso? heattributes his recovery to the strong su**ort he has >rom his >amily. He says that alarge (art o8 recidivism lies in certain 8actors o8 (risoners, lives that the

justice system can do very little6 i8 anything6 to control. He re>ers to ananiety o8 living a Qnormal li8e6C saying? Bou try and go bac6 to society and youget tired o> the same thing. ou 8nd the easy 2ay out. ou ma6e [1?// sellingdo*e. 5hen you get out? there4s no luc6 8nding a job.C %any (risoners6 u(onrelease6 have no other choice but to return bac to 7here they 7ere

be8ore being incarcerated: the same environment6 the same (eo(le6 thesame habits.

,riminals 2ill be released? e*ected to be sa>e? and return to their old habits. This isnot just as it 2ill lead to even greater damages to an unsus*ecting community o>la2Kabiding citiFens. 5hy should those citiFens have to *ay >or a >aulty systemM

*ontention 2: Retribution is a ey (art o8 (unishment



Retribution hel*s to level the *laying 8eld. A>ter a crime is committed? there is anun>air imbalance created by one individual having 2ounded another 2ithout havingto *ay >or their crime. Retribution allo2s the balance sheet to return to Fero:

'iriam Rodgers? "octorate o> 3hiloso*hy ,andidate at O>ord University? October

0114

BOn Retributive 0ustice?C O>ord.academia.edu?htt*:LLo>ord.academia.eduL'iriamRodgersL3a*ersL11G-LOnRetributive0usticeAlternatively? the im(osition o8 (unishment on a deserving 7rongdoer mightsatis8y a Qdebt the 7rongdoer o7es society 8or the un8air advantage hesecured 8or himsel8 over the other members o8 society by his 7rongdoing?2hich disru*ted the just distribution o> advantages and disadvantages in society.3ro*onents o> this vie2 argue that a criminal necessarily secures an unjustgain by Q(ermitting himsel8 an ecessive 8reedom o8 choosing and in Qtheillicit satis8actions 7hich the unsuccess8ul have never had6 and that thatgain disru(ts the (reviously just distribution o8 advantages anddisadvantages in society. A criminal4s un>air gain Bis un>air or unjust ? not merelyto his victim? but to all those 2ho have been obedient.C According to this vie2?

retributive justice then aims to correct this injustice and restore the 8airbalance o8 advantages and disadvantages in society 7hich crime disturbs. The state can *ur*ortedly restore this >air balance by im*osing *unishment oncriminals? ensuring they do not *ro8t by their crimes and thereby adjustingcriminals4 *ositions relative to their >ello2s.

Retribution is the only 2ay to correct the initial injustice. Other2ise? the injustice isallo2ed to stand? and even acce*ted by the state as an un>ortunate *recursor to a*roductive li>e. This sim*ly is not the 2ay it should be. #or these reasons? $ urge anegative ballot in today4s debate round.



Section 0: #egative Evidence



Retribution "s Lo(ular

+ustice Has Jreat #ormative !orce'iriam Rodgers? "octorate o> 3hiloso*hy ,andidate at O>ord University? October

0114BOn Retributive 0ustice?C O>ord.academia.edu?htt*:LLo>ord.academia.eduL'iriamRodgersL3a*ersL11G-LOnRetributive0ustice$ have argued that justice is a virtue? a moral ecellence that agents ought toehibit. On all accounts6 a cry 8or justice has great normative 8orce. -evehemently object to (erceived injustices6 both on our o7n behal8 and onthe behal8 o8 others. -e rightly recogniKe that victims o8 injustice havebeen 7ronged in a s(ecial 7ay. The raison d4\tre o> justice is to *revent orcorrect injustice? and thus? doing justice maes the 7orld a better6 or at leastno 7orse6 (lace. To the etent that the intended conseuence o> some agent4s*ur*ortedly just act ma6es the 2orld 2orse? the agent does not ehibit virtue andhis conduct cannot *ro*erly be described as just.

Americans Su((ort eath LenaltyLe7 Research *enter? 0anuary )th 01'0B,ontinued 'ajority Su**ort >or "eath 3enalty?C 3e2 Research ,enter >or the 3eo*leand the 3ress htt*:LL222.*eo*leK*ress.orgL/1L/1L/)LcontinuedKmajorityKsu**ortK>orKdeathK*enaltyLA survey by the Le7 Research *enter 8or the Leo(le the Lress and theLe7 !orum on Religion Lublic >i8e? conducted %ov. GK1&? /11? among ?//1adults? $nds that C0@ 8avor the death (enalty 8or (eo(le convicted o8murder 7hile 2'@ are o((osed. That is generally in line 2ith *olling on thedeath *enalty over the *ast several years. "uring the midK1GG/s? 2hen the 3e2

Research ,enter 8rst surveyed on this issue? su**ort >or the death *enalty 2as at ahistoric high *oint. $n '44C6 5F@ 8avored ca(ital (unishment 8or (eo(leconvicted o8 murder. Su((ort 8or the death (enalty subse<uently declined68alling to CC@ in 011' and C0@ in late 011B. Since then6 su((ort hasmostly remained in the lo73to3mid3C1s6 though it di((ed slightly to BF@Iin October 01''.

Lo(ular O(inion Su((orts Lrisons and Lunishment'organ Reynolds? %ational ,enter >or 3olicy Analysis? October nd 0111Q"oes 3unishment 5or6 To Reduce ,rime?Q testimony be>ore the House ,ommitteeon the 0udiciary Subcommittee on ,rime

htt*:LL222.nc*a.orgLsubLd*dLinde.*h*MArticle$"G&&&The ans7er is obvious to most Americans 33 yes6 o8 course (unishmentreduces crime. 3unishment converts criminal activity >rom a *aying *ro*osition toa non*aying *ro*osition? at least sometimes? and *eo*le res*ond accordingly. 5e allare a2are o> ho2 similar incentives 2or6 in our lives? >or eam*le? choosing 2hetheror not to drive >aster than the la2 allo2s . . . $ncentives matter? including the ris6s2e are 2illing to run. This is only a commonsense observation about ho2 *eo*lechoose to behave . . . . Lublic o(inion strongly su((orts the increased use o8



(risons to give criminals their just desserts. The endorsement o> *unishmentis relatively uni>orm across all grou*s. %ore than three3<uarters o8 the (ublicsee (unishment as the (rimary justi$cation 8or sentencing. %ore than 51(ercent believe that inca(acitation is the only sure 7ay to (revent 8uturecrimes6 and more than three3<uarters believe that the courts are too easyon criminals. Three3<uarters 8avor the death (enalty 8or murder.



Retribution A ey Lart O8 Lunishment

Retribution Removes *riminal,s Un8air Advantage'iriam Rodgers? "octorate o> 3hiloso*hy ,andidate at O>ord University? October

0114BOn Retributive 0ustice?C O>ord.academia.edu?htt*:LLo>ord.academia.eduL'iriamRodgersL3a*ersL11G-LOnRetributive0usticeAlternatively? the im(osition o8 (unishment on a deserving 7rongdoer mightsatis8y a Qdebt the 7rongdoer o7es society 8or the un8air advantage hesecured 8or himsel8 over the other members o8 society by his 7rongdoing?2hich disru*ted the just distribution o> advantages and disadvantages in society.3ro*onents o> this vie2 argue that a criminal necessarily secures an unjustgain by Q(ermitting himsel8 an ecessive 8reedom o8 choosing and in Qtheillicit satis8actions 7hich the unsuccess8ul have never had6 and that thatgain disru(ts the (reviously just distribution o8 advantages anddisadvantages in society. A criminal4s un>air gain Bis un>air or unjust ? not merely

to his victim? but to all those 2ho have been obedient.C According to this vie2?retributive justice then aims to correct this injustice and restore the 8airbalance o8 advantages and disadvantages in society 7hich crime disturbs.

The state can *ur*ortedly restore this >air balance by im*osing *unishment oncriminals? ensuring they do not *ro8t by their crimes and thereby adjustingcriminals4 *ositions relative to their >ello2s.

rug O;enders #eed LunishmentRachel HutKel? *rosecutor? 0une !rd 0114B'any drug o9enders need *unishment? not just treatment?C "ayton "aily %e2shtt*:LL222.daytondailyne2s.comLne2sLcommunityLs*ringboroLo*inionKmanyKdrugKo9endersKneedK*unishmentKnotKjustKtreatmentK1-&GG.html

Treatment6 7ithout (unishment6 is un8air to victims o8 drug3motivatedcrimes? such as that committed by Roie u9 in a 5arren ,ounty nursing homerecently. u9 stole *ain medication >rom elderly *atients 2ho su9ered needlessly asa result o> her drug addiction. !urther6 treatment is ine;ective to deal 7ithdealers such as #icholas >oKier6 convicted o8 dealing cocaine and ecstasyin -arren *ounty. %any drug dealers lie >oKier are Qbusinessmen6 7ho(ro$t enormously 8rom the addiction o8 others. oFier is a criminal 2ho 2as?and should be? *unished by the criminal justice system. Stanley Hall caused*ermanent brain damage to KyearKold 'arilyn 2hile using drugs. $t is not >air to'arilyn to sim*ly treat her tormentor rather than to *unish him. %any drugcrimes should continue to be dealt 7ith harshly. The (eo(le 7ho areharmed by the sel$sh6 destructive acts o8 drug users and drug dealers

deserve nothing less.

Lunishment A)rms Autonomy6 Res(onsibility6 and ignity o8the "ndividual,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o.



htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> The stereoty(e o8 (unishment as inherently cruel and inhumane is 8alseand misleading6 as is the stereoty(e o8 treatment as benevolent andhumane. Those 2ho su**ose that rehabilitative treatment is intrinsically morehumane than *unishment have bought into a >alse dichotomy bet2een *unishment

and Qhumanitarianism.Q "t is (recisely 7ithin the contet o8 (unishment6 aso((osed to treatment6 that humanistic conce(ts are most relevant.3rinci*led and >air *unishment >or 2rongdoing treats individuals as *ersons and ashuman beings rather than as objects. Lunishment is an a)rmation o8 theautonomy6 res(onsibility6 and dignity o8 the individual (aternalisticrehabilitative treatment is a denial o8 all three.



Retribution "s "nherently +ust

Retribution "ncludes Test O8 +ust Lunishment'iriam Rodgers? "octorate o> 3hiloso*hy ,andidate at O>ord University? October

0114BOn Retributive 0ustice?C O>ord.academia.edu?htt*:LLo>ord.academia.eduL'iriamRodgersL3a*ersL11G-LOnRetributive0usticeThe Retributivist claim is that retributive justice calls on a court to (unishan individual i8 he is guilty o8 committing a crime because criminalsdeserve to be (unished 8or their crimes the Qjust (unishment claim isthat an individual,s (unishment 8or a crime can only be just i8 he is guiltyo8 committing that crime. The t2o claims are distinct? but com*atible. TheRetributivist claim is *ositive and the just *unishment claim is negative: the latterrecommends that courts *unish criminals on the grounds o> their negative desert2hile the >ormer *rohibits courts >rom *unishing innocents? irres*ective o> thereasons that count in >avor o> *unishing. "8 sound6 the Retributivist claim must

entail the just (unishment claim because negative desert may soundlyground the im(osition o8 (unishment on some only 7hen deserves tosu;er 8or her 7rongdoing.

Retributive +ustice Hel(s +usti8y >egal Lunishment'iriam Rodgers? "octorate o> 3hiloso*hy ,andidate at O>ord University? October

0114BOn Retributive 0ustice?C O>ord.academia.edu?htt*:LLo>ord.academia.eduL'iriamRodgersL3a*ersL11G-LOnRetributive0ustice2hen *unishment is unjusti8ed? *unishment cannot be justly allocated on groundso> negative desert or other2ise. $n other 2ords? retributive justice either hel(s

justi8y legal (unishment and grounds its (ro(er allocation6 or it does nothave anything to do 7ith the justice o8 (unishment . The Retributivist mustclaim that (rinci(les o8 retributive justice give courts a (ositive reason to(unish criminals 8or their crimes because they deserve it. $n my terminology?Retributivism suggests that retributive justice o*erates as 2hat this *a*er 2illidenti>y as a BmodeC or B>ormC o> justice? that is6 a distinct 7ay agents6including courts6 mae just judgments.

Rehabilitation oes #ot "m(ly Humane Treatment,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> Rehabilitation raises the <uestion o8 7hether it is society?s obligation totrans8orm the inmate into a la73abiding citiKen6 not 7hether it is society?sduty to treat the inmate humanely. %one o> the *ur*oses o> *unishmentdirectly de8nes a stateNs obligation to care >or inmates. $n >act6 almost any



justi$cation o8 (unishment might be inter(reted to im(ly conditions thatrange 8rom the brutal to the benign. Rehabilitation in some o8 its(aternalistic 8orms is just as coercive as other justi$cations. "nmates may7ell be 9encouraged69 or 9(ersuaded9 into treatment against their 7ishes.Retribution? o>ten associated 2ith harsh treatment? also can im(ly that a(rolonged se(aration 8rom society6 (ro(ortional to the crime6 is su)cient

(unishment6 but that the (rison climate must be sa8e and must o;erenough amenities so that (rison li8e is not inhumane.



Rehabilitation Studies Are !la7ed

%eta3analysis O8 Same ata Reaches i;ering *onclusions,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> %eta3analysis is a legitimate research tool6 but is easy to misuse . To besure? metaKanalysts are not deconstructionists 2ho merely read into the literature2hatever they *lease? but their techniue im*oses such demanding methodologicalreuirements that it is di+cult to conduct a metaKanalysis 2hich controls andadjusts >or errors in the *rimary studies 2ithout introducing ne2 errors and biaseso> its o2n. "t is not sur(rising6 then6 that se(arate revie7s and meta3analyses o8 research on the e;ectiveness o8 correctional rehabilitation

(rograms reach di;ering conclusions and criticiKe each other?s validity.

%eta3analysis "s O8ten Tautological,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> Se(arately6 studies lie these are (er8ectly legitimate6 but they do not(rove anything. They are tautological they e(lain their results 7itha8ter3the38act hy(otheses but do not test those e(lanations. 5hat? then? i>

a metaKanalysis o> 1// studies 8nds? a signi8cant relation bet2een Bris6C orBres*onsivityC or Bneeds?C on the one hand? and treatment e9ect? on the otherM,ould this metaKanalysis be regarded as con8rmatoryKKa summary o> re*licationsM%ot necessarily. $> the o*erational de8nitions o> Qris6Q and Qres*onsivityQ andQneedsQ @the *redictor variables di9er >rom study to study? 2e 2ill learn nothing>rom a metaKanalysis sho2ing that treatment e9ect de*ends on these >actors. Eveni> Qris6Q al2ays 2ere based? say? on *rior record? at least t2o *roblems still couldeist. #irst? the criterion o> ho2 long or ho2 serious a record had to be in order to beQris6yQ still could be de8ned di9erently? and e *ost >acto? >or each studyI thus Qris6Qstill 2ould be tautological. Second? researchers ty(ically do not re(ort all theinteractions they test they tend to re(ort only those that mae adi;erence. Thus most o8 the negative evidence sho7ing that treatment

e;ects do not vary by level o8 ris goes unre(orted. A bias is therebycreated in 8avor o8 the conclusion that treatment 7ors? i> only >or cases in2hich ris6 ma6es a di9erence and there>ore is re*orted.

*ali8ornia Lrisons *annot Evaluate E;ectiveness o8Rehabilitation'ichael %ontgomery? re*orter? 'arch 1th 01'1



BState unable to gauge e9ectiveness o> *rison rehab?C ,ali>ornia 5atchhtt*:LLcali>ornia2atch.orgLdailyre*ortLstateKunableKgaugeKe9ectivenessK*risonKrehabK1!<)The re(ort also sheds light on another (erennial (roblem in the state(rison system: The *ali8ornia e(artment o8 *orrections andRehabilitation has no de(artment37ide system to assess the e;ectiveness

o8 educational and other rehabilitation (rograms and thus no data on7hether s(eci$c (rograms in *ali8ornia can actually cut recidivism. ASe*tember //G re*ort by the state auditor made a similar *oint: BX2hile,orrectionsN budget >or its academic and vocational *rograms totaled more than[/< million in 8scal year //<K/G? it con8rmed that its system 8or accessing6(rocessing6 and tracing inmate educational data is etremely inade<uate6and there8ore it is unable to determine the success o8 its (rograms inreducing the chance that inmates 2ill return to *rison once they are released.C



Rehabilitation Undermines Lunishment

Rehabilitation #ot Lur(ose O8 *riminal >a7'iriam Rodgers? "octorate o> 3hiloso*hy ,andidate at O>ord University? October

0114BOn Retributive 0ustice?C O>ord.academia.edu?htt*:LLo>ord.academia.eduL'iriamRodgersL3a*ersL11G-LOnRetributive0usticeRetributivists maintain that retributive justice is at least (art o8 the (ointor justi8ying aim o8 legal (unishment. Ho2ever? they do not claim thatretributive justice is the *oint or justi>ying aim o> criminal la2. The (oint o8criminal la7 is to announce to society that certain conduct is (rohibited6and thereby to inhibit such conduct. Lrimary criminal la7s set standardso8 conduct (rohibiting certain conduct secondary criminal la7s s(eci8y7hat o)cials or courts must or may do 7hen the (rimary criminal la7s arebroen. These secondary la2s are conditional norms that only bear on courts in theevent that *rimary la2s are violated. The criminal la7 7ould be (er8ectly

satis$ed i8 there 7ere no violations o8 its (rimary la7s6 and thus nothingre<uiring satis8action as a matter o8 retributive justice.

Rehabilitation Removes Res(onsibility o8 *riminals,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> As *unishment? im*risonment conveys an im*ortant cultural message? but i8 the

o)cial mission o8 a (rison is de$ned simultaneously as both (unishmentand rehabilitation conPicting and con8using messages are transmittedboth inside and outside the (rison 7alls. "nside the 7alls6 such a de$nitionconveys a message o8 rights 7ithout res(onsibility. -hen a (rison systemis mandated in its mission statement to attem(t rehabilitation? or evenmerely to *rovide o**ortunities and resources >or sel>Kim*rovement? that mandatecreates 8or inmates a legitimate claim a rightI to (ersonally bene$cialservices. At the same time? it undermines inmates? accountability by de$ningthem6 lie children6 as insu)ciently develo(ed and disadvantaged (ersons8or 7hose 8uture behavior society must tae some res(onsibility . 5hereasim*risonment as *unishment de8nes inmates as res*onsible >or their *ast behavior?and 2hereas disci*line 2ithin *rison de8nes inmates as accountable >or their

current behavior? rehabilitation as a goal o8 the system de$nes inmates asnot 8ully res(onsible 8or their 8uture behavior.

Rehabilitation Lrograms *on8er /ene$ts on Those -ho on,teserve Them,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442



B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> Lrison rehabilitation (rograms6 es(ecially i8 they are success8ul6 con8ervaluable but unearned bene$ts on the undeserving at the e(ense o8 la73

abiding ta(ayers. To bene$t convicts thus on the grounds that they haveviolated the la7 and may do so again is6 in e;ect6 to re7ard etortion. Asan alternative? one legitimately might argue that *risoners deserve certain 6inds o>hel* merely because they are human beings? or because they are citiFens to2ard2hom? merely as citiFens? society has some obligations and in 2hom it has someinvestment. That rationale 2ould be legitimate? but only to the same etent as it2ould a**ly to all other citiFens. Thus rehabilitation (rograms are more

justi$able outside than inside the criminal justice system.



Rehabilitation Lrograms on,t -or

*ali8ornia Rehabilitation Lrograms "ne;ective'ichael %ontgomery? re*orter? 'arch 1th 01'1

BState unable to gauge e9ectiveness o> *rison rehab?C ,ali>ornia 5atchhtt*:LLcali>ornia2atch.orgLdailyre*ortLstateKunableKgaugeKe9ectivenessK*risonKrehabK1!<)

The ,",R4s ,ate is no stranger to this issue. 5hile at the helm o> the ins*ectorgeneral4s o+ce in //-? *ate ecoriated the de(artment o8 corrections overits substance abuse (rograms. *ate called s(ending on in3(risontreatment since '4F4 9a com(lete 7aste o8 money69 and said (risono)cials e(t e(anding (rograms even though more than 01 re(orts saidthat the (rograms 7ere 8ailing. A ,",R s*o6es*erson con8rmed that thede*artment has no recent data to sho7 7hether educational (rograms havecut recidivism rates. 7ut de*artment o+cials are de>ending the ne2 substanceabuse *rograms? *ointing to a re*ort >rom last Se*tember that sho2ed a decline in

recidivism among inmates 2ho com*leted inK*rison and communityKbasedtreatment *rograms. Ho7ever6 it,s unclear to 7hat etent the (rogramsconducted behind bars 7ere res(onsible 8or the dro( in recidivism. Here,s7hy: The same survey also 8ound that inmates 7ho com(leted only in3(rison treatment (rograms had a higher recidivism rate than the generalconvict (o(ulation.

Rehabilitation *reates *ynicism6 Resistance To Treatment,harles H. >ogan? University o> ,onnecticut? and ;erald Jaes? #ederal 7ureau

o> 3risons? 0une '442B'etaKAnalysis and the Rehabilitation o> 3unishment?C 0ustice Zuarterly (olume 1/?

%o. htt*:LL222.bo*.govLne2sLresearch*rojectsL*ublishedre*ortsLcondenvirLore*rlogangaes.*d> Rather than so8tening the (ains o8 im(risonment6 the rehabilitative goalmay even add injustice to injury because it encourages individualiKedtreatment6 7hich undermines consistency and 8airness. $ndividualiFedtreatment reuires discretion? 2hich lends itsel8 to abuse in the 8orm o8arbitrary and ca(ricious distinctions. $n *ursuit o> rehabilitation? o9enders 2hohave committed similar 2rongs o>ten are treated di9erently because o> di9erencesin *ersonality? bac6ground? and social s6ills. #urthermore? 2hen rehabilitativetreatment is de$ned as an o)cial goal o8 the agents and institutions o8authority6 then treatment6 too6 becomes (aternalistic and authoritarian.

The result is cynicism and resistance on the (art o8 the intendedbene$ciaries.

Rehabilitation !ails To Target Root *auses 0ohn "el Rosario? re*orter? August 11th 01'1



B"iagnosing crime: The >ailures o> rehabilitation in the justice system?C7orderFine.com htt*:LLborderFine.comL/1/L/<LdiagnosingKcrimeKtheK>ailuresKo>KrehabilitationKinKtheKjusticeKsystemL,orteF? !? is a rare ece*tion to rehabilitation. ,urrently bac6 in El 3aso? heattributes his recovery to the strong su**ort he has >rom his >amily. He says that alarge (art o8 recidivism lies in certain 8actors o8 (risoners, lives that the

justice system can do very little6 i8 anything6 to control. He re>ers to ananiety o8 living a Qnormal li8e6C saying? Bou try and go bac6 to society and youget tired o> the same thing. ou 8nd the easy 2ay out. ou ma6e [1?// sellingdo*e. 5hen you get out? there4s no luc6 8nding a job.C %any (risoners6 u(onrelease6 have no other choice but to return bac to 7here they 7erebe8ore being incarcerated: the same environment6 the same (eo(le6 thesame habits.

wndi rehab vs retribution

Documents