1AC---Polls

1AC---Framing
I affirm Resolved: The primary objective of the United States criminal justice system
ought to be rehabilitation.

My value is morality – due to the word ought in the resolution.

My value criterion is consistency with popular consensus.

Let me clarify: a survey or poll is a scientific, non-biased public opinion study designed
to measure what the public's consensus is.

Prefer for 3 reasons:

1] Flexibility – Surveys include perspectives of a large amount of people – that means
that if the neg’s framework is good, somebody who answered the survey will have
already considered it
2] Infinite Regress – Congressman have been arguing about prison rehabilitation for
ages, prefer a framework that is the most representative and considers what majority
of people want
3] Actor Spec – Every decision the government makes is through a poll, ie. congress
makes decisions by seeing what legislation gets the most votes
Voeten ’13 [Voeten, Erik. "What Do Policymakers Want from Academics?" Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 25 Sept. 2013. Web. [Foreign Service and Government Department Georgetown
University; surveyed over 250 policymakers across the world] recut Bharadwaj

One exception to policymakers ’ aversion public opinion : Respondents

to quantitative social science was in the area of analysis

included among “useful” approaches “public opinion “ polling data is research/analysis of foreign audiences by whomever.” Another argued that and its analysis perhaps the

most basic and certainly amongthe most useful such products.” Multiple policymaker s cited polls as doing specifically ( ) the Pew Research Center

useful survey research and ( ). Finally, a fourth agreed that “opinion polling can be useful very in trying to determine what
populations think , especially in countries where freedom of expression is limited.”

Our framework is the best for decision making---crowds empirically make better
decisions than individual experts.
Hamada ‘20 — [Daisuke Hamada, Masataka Nakayama & Jun Saiki, 10-15-2020, "Wisdom of crowds
and collective decision-making in a survival situation with complex information integration,"
SpringerOpen, https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-020-00248-
z, accessed 3-1-2024] Bharadwaj
Background

The wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making are important tools for integrating
information between individuals, which can exceed the capacity of individual judgments . They are
based on different forms of information integration . The wisdom of crowds refers to the aggregation of
many independent judgments without deliberation and consensus, while collective decision-making is
aggregation with deliberation and consensus. Recent research has shown that collective decision-making outperforms the
wisdom of crowds. Additionally, many studies have shown that metacognitive knowledge of subjective confidence is useful for
improving aggregation performance. However, because most of these studies have employed relatively simple problems; for
example, involving general knowledge and estimating values and quantities of objects, it remains unclear whether their findings
can be generalized to real-life situations involving complex information integration. This study explores the performance and
process of the wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making by applying the wisdom of crowds with weighted confidence to
a survival situation task commonly used in studies of collective decision-making.

Results

The wisdom of crowds and collective decision-making outperformed individual judgment . However,
collective decision-making did not outperform the wisdom of crowds. Contrary to previous studies, weighted confidence
showed no advantage from comparison between confidence-weighted and non-weighted aggregations; a simulation analysis
varying in group size and sensitivity of confidence weighting revealed interaction between group size and sensitivity of
confidence weighting. This reveals that it is because of small group size and not the peculiarity of the survival task that results in
no advantage of weighted confidence.

Conclusions

The study’s findings suggest that the wisdom of crowds could be applicable to complex problem-
solving tasks , and interaction between group size and sensitivity of confidence weighting is
important for confidence-weighted aggregation effects.

We achieve our value of morality, through our value criterion of consistency with
popular consensus, because we represent everyone using surveys that determine
what society sees as the most moral action writ large.

There are a few ways to determine which polls are better under our framework:
1—Relevancy – the more relevant the sample is to the actor the more it matters to the
actor when deciding on an action.
2—Recency – the more recent the more representative the poll is of recent
perspectives and opinions.
3—Minority – Polls where minority groups' opinions differ heavily from the majority
should be weighted more heavily to ensure equitable distribution of policies.
 1AC---Advocacy
Thus, Contention 1 is POLLING:

The first three words in our Constitution are We the People. It's written larger than
anything else because the framers of that document wanted to always remind you
who's in charge, we the people we are the employers of the congress, and they have
an obligation to listen to us.

Eight polls surveying thousands of Americans all concluded that Americans

overwhelming support rehabilitation as a focus for the criminal justice system.
Clarke ‘18 — [Matthew Clarke (Prison Legal News, a Project of the Human Rights Defense Center), 3-5-
2018, "Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration," Prison Legal News,
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2018/nov/6/polls-show-people-favor-rehabilitation-over-
incarceration/, accessed 2-29-2024] Bharadwaj

majority of Americans – 67 percent overall – believe that building more prisons

A recent poll found a
and jails does not reduce crime . Nearly as many – 62 percent – don’t believe that more prisons would
improve the quality of life in their communities , either. The survey of attitudes toward incarceration, conducted
for the Vera Institute of Justice between February 27 and March 5, 2018, showed a similar attitude among both urban and rural
respondents, with 61 percent of the latter agreeing that more prison construction would not affect
crime rates .
The results mirror the findings of a November 2017 survey conducted for the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice, which found a
71 percent – agreed that incarceration for long periods is
solid majority of Americans –
counterproductive to public safety due to the absence of effective rehabilitation programs in
prisons.

Justice Action Network (JAN) published in January 2018, 85 percent of

In another poll for the
respondents supported making rehabilitation the goal of the criminal justice system rather than
punishment .

March 2017 poll conducted for the John D. & Catherine T . MacArthur
The three surveys follow a
Foundation, which reported 62 percent of respondents favored rehabilitation over incarceration for
non-violent offenders, while 74 percent opposed imprisonment altogether for the mentally ill .

The Vera survey sampled 2,000 adult Americans . About half (49 percent) agreed that “too many
people are in jail for the wrong reasons ,” and 55 percent believed the country’s criminal justice
system discriminates against poor people . Forty percent said incarceration rates in their communities were too
high, though two-thirds stated they would be concerned or very concerned if they learned the incarceration rate in their
community was higher than the rate in similar communities.
At 30 percent, prisons and jails were assigned the lowest priority for construction and repair, behind schools and educational
facilities (78 percent), roads and transportation (71 percent), hospitals and other health care centers (61 percent), and water
treatment and irrigation plants (55 percent).

Building more prisons and jails ranked dead last on the list of quality of life priorities, behind providing more jobs and job
training, building and improving roads and infrastructure, strengthening community-based mental health treatment, increasing
community-based drug and alcohol treatment, creating parks and green space, investing in violence-reduction programs,
reducing racism and bias, and investing in arts and culture.

For theACLU poll, the Benenson Strategy Group interviewed over 1,000 adults across the country, 41
percent of whom described themselves as conservatives , 31 percent as liberals and 23 percent as
moderates . Their level of agreement was significant, with 71 percent overall supporting a reduction
in the prison population – 87 percent of Democrats , 67 percent of Independents and 57 percent
of Republicans , including 52 percent of those who reported voting for President Donald Trump.

91 percent – agreed that the U.S. criminal justice system needs reform, and more than
Almost all –
two-thirds said they would be more likely to vote for political candidates who favor reducing the
prison population and spending the savings on drug treatment and mental health programming.
Nearly as many – 72 percent – would prefer a candidate opposed to mandatory minimum sentences.
A majority of respondents also recognized that the criminal justice system reflects racial bias, with just one-third believing it
treats blacks fairly. A large majority – 84 percent – also agree that the mentally ill do not belong in prison.

Public Opinion Strategies conducted the JAN poll, which found support for criminal justice reform
spanning the political spectrum – 68 percent among Republicans, 78 percent among Independents
and 80 percent among Democrats. Of those polled, 87 percent disapproved of mandatory minimum sentences, instead
favoring alternatives like electronic monitoring, community service or probation. Removing barriers to employment or
education for those who have completed their sentences drew 90 percent support.
For the MacArthur Foundation survey, Zogby Analytics/RTI International polled over 3,000 people online in December 2016. The study queried respondents about their attitudes towards
crimes that did not involve violence, a sexual offense or significant loss of property. Only 18 percent believed punishment should be the primary purpose of imprisonment in such cases; nearly
twice as many – 33 percent – supported rehabilitation as a goal. The poll also found support for reforming the money bail system, with two-thirds of respondents opposing pre-trial detention
simply due to lack of funds to make bail. Perhaps most glaring was the finding that just 13 percent were aware that non-violent offenders account for 75 percent of jail populations. According
to Jasmine Heiss, director of outreach and public affairs strategist at the Vera Institute of Justice, local incarceration rates are strongly influenced by local actors such as judges and prosecutors.
A judge who always gives out the maximum sentence or a prosecutor who always seeks the maximum penalties will increase a county’s incarceration rate. Such over-incarceration is not linked
to less crime; instead, the economic distress resulting from higher incarceration rates may drive up the community’s crime rate. In August 2016, the Alliance for Safety and Justice released the
results of the first-ever survey of crime victims’ perspectives on the U.S. criminal justice system. A majority wanted prosecutors to look for alternatives to incarceration to hold criminal
defendants accountable. Sixty-one percent preferred shorter sentences to spending on incarceration, while 38 percent believed incarceration actually increased recidivism. Eighty-nine percent
of crime victims favored additional spending on schools and education over building more prisons and jails, 83 percent supported more spending on mental health treatment and 73 percent
wanted increased drug treatment instead of incarceration. The survey found that young and poor people were more likely to be victims of crime. The victimization rate for those between 18
and 24 was twice that of all other age groups, and the rate for those earning less than $15,000 a year was thrice that of those making at least $75,000. Over a third of violent crime victims had
previously been a victim of violent crime. Two-thirds of the victims surveyed received no help after the crime; most who received help got it from family and friends.

“The data is clear – when it comes to criminal justice , Americans want reform and rehabilitation ,”
concluded Udi Ofer, who serves as deputy national political director and director of the Campaign for
Smart Justice at the ACLU.
These surveys are uniquely good – it looks at over 1,000 general election voters. That
includes people of both genders, all ages, and people of all parts of the political
spectrum. The majority of people, regardless of their political affiliation, gender, or
age, agree that the focus of the criminal justice system should be rehabilation – that
means you should affirm because we the people want rehabilitation.
 1AC---Advantage
Contention 2 is PRISION REFORM.,

Regardless of public polling, we will still argue that a focus on rehabilitation would do
net good to reduce crime, and thus would be good regardless of our framework.

Criminal justice is failing and expanding the American carceral state – rehabilitation
solves
Vogel 12 [Carl Vogel, UChicago faculty, Faculty of Political Science and Criminology. “An End to Mass
Incarceration,” studies alternatives to the United State’s current carceral system, 4 August 2012,
University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration Magazine,
https://crownschool.uchicago.edu/ssa_magazine/end-mass-incarceration.html, Accessed Feb 28,
2024] // MIAW
For Matthew Epperson, the problem is clear, even though he knows that forging the path to solutions won’t be easy.

“The criminal justice system in this country has been broken for years. It’s simply not producing
effective results,” says Epperson, an assistant professor at SSA. “My hope is that people in the social work arena can be a
strong voice in the conversation to address the changes that need to be made.”

Starting in the 1970s and picking up steam over the last several decades, the answer to how to deal
with persons who commit crimes in the United States moved far away from an established
rehabilitation model to a simpler idea: Punish them, typically by putting them in prison.

The era of mass incarceration has seen the U.S. prison population grow by 500 percent in 30 years.
Including those in local jails, more than 2.3 million Americans are incarcerated today, and the U.S. has
the highest incarceration rate in the world, five times more than in England; 12 times more than in
Japan.
The mechanics of mass incarceration include the war on drugs, “zero tolerance” policing, and sentencing guidelines such as mandatory
minimums and “three strikes and you’re out” rules. “There has been a pernicious and quiet expansion of the carceral
state. In the macro-structural story, it’s a strategy of poverty management,” says SSA Assistant Professor Robert Fairbanks II. “In many
respects, prisons stand in for or replace social welfare and social service provision.”

Fairbanks points out that roughly two-thirds of the 35,000 prisoners who are released from Illinois prisons each year return to just seven zip
codes on the West and South sides of Chicago, where black male unemployment is over 40 percent. In
1950, 70 percent of those
behind bars were white, by 1990, the ratio had flipped: 70 percent were African American and Latino.
One 2008 study found that, in Illinois, 68 percent of those imprisoned are African American, and of the drug offenders who are returning to
Chicago after release, 92 percent are African American.

“At the end, this tough on crime approach means a whole lot of people are returning to their
neighborhoods with little options or education or training,” says Pamela F. Rodriguez, A.M. ’92, the president at
Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC), a nonprofit that provides services and advocates for individuals in the criminal justice
system with substance abuse and mental health disorders.

There is a growing chorus against mass incarceration, which ranges from those like Michelle Alexander, author of The New
Jim Crow, who argues that how we’ve filled our prisons allows society to discriminate against African Americans, to economic pragmatists who
can see that as a policy, mass incarnation isn’t working. In 1987, states spent $10.6 billion on corrections. By 2008, that
figure had risen to $47 billion. “Ironically, part of the fiscal fallout of the state budget crises and high recidivism rates is that there is
some consensus that systematic mass incarceration is simply unsustainable,” Fairbanks says. “Ironically, part of the fiscal fallout of the state
budget crises and high recidivism rates is that there is some consensus that systematic mass incarceration is simply unsustainable,” Fairbanks
says.

Change is starting to come. Over

the last decade, harsh sentencing guidelines, such as New York’s 1970s-era
Rockefeller Drug Laws, have been rewritten, and the high cost of incarceration and recent state budget
crises have made many states rethink their prison systems—and even start releasing some prisoners
early. From 2009 to 2010, for the first time in nearly 30 years, the number of people behind bars
dropped, albeit slightly.
As more and more attention is focused on ending the era of mass incarceration, the question becomes, what will replace it? Trends would
indicate that community supervision will become even more commonplace; currently, more than 5 million of the 7.2 million Americans in the
U.S. criminal justice system are on probation or parole. Yet for
the last three decades, with the philosophy of
rehabilitation on the wane, the criminal justice system provided fewer resources for helping those on
probation or parole, fewer services to inmates while in prison, and little in the way of assistance for ex-
offenders re-entering society after being incarcerated.
Here too, the tide is starting to turn. In 2002, for example, the National Institute of Corrections funded a pilot program in Illinois and Maine to
start using an evidence-based model for adults on probation. With a uniform assessment tool for new probationers of risk factors like
employment history, available family support, and substance abuse and mental health issues, probation officers are better able to determine
the level of oversight and which services should be made available.

“It’s been absolutely invaluable. It allows us to target resources where they do the most good,” says Jesus Reyes, A.M. ’85, director of the Social
Service Department and acting chief probation officer of the Circuit Court of Cook County. “Traditionally, probation officers had been
monitoring agents. Now, in addition, they’ve become change agents: We’ve trained officers in motivational interviewing and cognitive
behavioral programs. The program has been expanded to all districts. It’s no longer a pilot. It’s how we do business.”

Programs such as these are just what Epperson hopes to see more of in the criminal justice system. “Social
workers have been
heavily involved with criminal justice throughout their history, instrumental in creating the first
juvenile courts and designing programs for rehabilitation. In the 1950s, approximately half of probation
officers were social workers,” he says. “With the move away from rehabilitation, that tradition faded.
Now it’s a ripe time for the next generation of social workers to actively reengage in criminal justice
practice and policy, to help transform the system.”

Crime rates are still sky high and rising, which proves the system is failing. Only reform
can flip the trend.
Lopez ‘23 — [Ernesto Lopez (Research Specialist, Council on Criminal Justice), 01-06-2023, "Crime
Trends in U.S. Cities: Mid-Year 2023 Update," Council on Criminal Justice, https://counciloncj.org/mid-
year-2023-crime-trends/, accessed 2-29-2024] Bharadwaj

study updates and supplements previous U.S. crime trends reports by the Council on Criminal
This
Justice (CCJ) with additional crime data through June 2023 . It examines monthly crime rates for 10 violent,
property, and drug offenses in 37 American cities. The 37 cities are not necessarily representative of all cities in the United
States. Not all cities reported data for each offense (see Appendix), and the data used to measure the crime trends are subject
to revision by local jurisdictions.
Motor vehicle thefts continued their upward trend through the first half of 2023. There were 33.5%
more motor vehicle thefts from January through June 2023 compared to the first half of 2022 . The
number of drug offenses increased by 1% over the same period.

Domestic violence incidents increased by 0.3% in 11 cities during the first half of 2023 compared to
the first half of 2022 .

Violent crimes remain elevated compared to 2019, the year prior to the COVID pandemic and racial
justice protests of 2020. There were 24% more homicides during the first half of 2023 than during the
first half of 2019 in the study cities

Rehabilitation empirically reduces re-offense rates.

Davidson ‘22 — [Davidson, Skylar. “Preventing Crime Through Rehabilitation.” The Alliance for Citizen
Engagement. October 28, 2022. Web.
<https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-criminaljustice/preventing-crime-through-rehabilitation/>,
accessed 2-29-2024] Ece + Bharadwaj

Effectiveness of Rehabilitation on Crime Prevention and the Impact on People of Color Although
Martinson later retracted many of his conclusions regarding rehabilitation programs, and his original report was found to
academic community and policymakers embraced his views on
include major methodological flaws, the
rehabilitation as a form of crime prevention. Contemporary research demonstrates that
rehabilitation programs reduce recidivism b y about 10%. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model uses risk
assessment tools to provide rehabilitative treatment to individuals with the highest risk of committing another crime . In a
study focusing on the effects of RNR efforts on Ohio’s halfway house programs, the recidivism rate
of high-risk individuals lowered by 20%. The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) serves as an example of how
community partnerships can also reduce recidivism. The BRI provides a family member or mentor to meet each
rearrest rate 30%
released person when they leave prison, and researchers found that participants had a
lower than the control group. Rehabilitation has the capacity to lower recidivism rates when
policymakers invest in mental health care, personalized education plans for individuals in prison , and
ensuring that individuals leaving prison have job opportunities . People in prison who participate in
education programs have a 43% lower chance of returning to prison than those who do not, and
individuals who have a job when they are in prison are 24% less likely to recidivate.

Rehabilitation solves for recidivism– multiple sources of research prove

Cruz 22 [Jamie Santa Cruz, journalist and independent writer focusing on social justice issues, based in
Parker, Colorado. “Rethinking prison as a deterrent to future crime,” 13 July 2022, Knowable Magazine
Annual Reviews, https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2022/rethinking-prison-
deterrent-future-crime, Accessed Feb. 28, 2024] // MIAW
In the spring of 1968, with crime rising at alarming rates across the country, Republican candidate for president Richard Nixon gave a speech in New York City
outlining his solutions for America’s lawlessness. “A society that is lenient and permissive for criminals,” he said, “is a society that is neither safe nor secure for
innocent men and women.”

Nixon’s sentiments were early signs of a new “tough on crime” mentality that took hold in the United
States during the 1970s. In the decades since, many policymakers have pushed harsher penalties and
mandatory minimum sentences in the belief that swift and certain punishment is key to public safety.
This mentality has contributed to America’s sky-high rates of incarceration: The US has more people per
capita behind bars than any nation in the world — almost 2 million people at present.

And while imprisonment may well provide punishment and sequester criminals away from public life for
a time, that may be all it does: A large body of research finds that spending time in prison or jail doesn’t
lower the risk that someone will offend again. In some instances, it actually raises the likelihood that
they will commit future crimes.
“We do spend a lot of money and we engage in a lot of deprivation of liberty, and the return on that is pretty low,” says Charles Loeffler, a criminologist at the
University of Pennsylvania. The question now is, how can we make our criminal justice system more productive?
One important step, says Loeffler, is to be smarter about whom we incarcerate, saving jail and prison for people who are a true public safety risk but avoiding
imprisonment in situations where it’s likely to worsen crime.

Equally important is changing how we incarcerate people, by implementing programs aimed at reform
rather than punishment, he says. Whether they’re education courses, meaningful work opportunities or specific types of therapy, evidence
suggests that rehabilitative programs can significantly reduce criminals’ risk of committing future
crimes.

Many people say we do such a poor job with incarceration that we should just do less of it, says Loeffler, who provides an overview of the research in
the 2022 Annual Review of Criminology. “An even better policy would be, can we use less of it, but when we do use it, can we do it differently?”

<<<<<Line Break>>>>>

Doubts about pretrial detention

Loeffler and Nagin’s analysis did turn up a specific situation where incarceration was consistently linked to an increased likelihood of committing a crime in the
future: pretrial detention. This is when people who have been accused of a crime are held in jail while they are awaiting trial. In the US, more than 400,000 people
are awaiting trial in jail at any given time.

The finding was preliminary, Loeffler stresses, and more research is needed to confirm the effect. But the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a
higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial.

It’s not surprising that pretrial detention would have a crime-promoting effect, says Nazgol Ghandnoosh,
a research analyst at the Sentencing Project, an advocacy organization working to end mass incarceration. Some people held pretrial are innocent or have
committed only low-level offenses that wouldn’t earn a jail sentence, yet they experience the negative effects of incarceration while awaiting trial.

“Holding them for a couple days, a couple months pretrial has devastating implications for their lives,”
Ghandnoosh says. Many find it hard to keep a job, hard to keep their housing. Such outcomes for a minor offense or no offense at all, she says, makes it more
difficult to live a law-abiding life and could tip people into crime.

Pretrial detention is especially concerning because it disproportionately affects poor people. While
wealthier people can typically post bail to get out of pretrial detention, people in poverty can’t. Pretrial
detention also has lopsided impacts on people of color: Black and Latino defendants are more likely to be denied bail or to have their
bail set at a higher amount.

Existing research doesn’t address how jail time affects violent offenders, who make up over 40 percent of the total US jail and prison population. When people are
convicted of serious or violent crime, they’re almost always put behind bars, which means there aren’t good opportunities to compare the effect of jail time to an
alternative sentence for this group.

Still, there’s little

reason to think that the effects of incarceration are different for people convicted of
violent crime compared to those convicted of nonviolent crime, Petrich says. “We know from other
research that people generally don’t specialize in their offending. People just are offenders. They’ll do
violent crime, they’ll do property crime, they’ll do drug offending,” he says. “If prison doesn’t work for
one group, it’s probably not going to work for another group.”
How to handle borderline cases

Moving away from incarceration altogether isn’t realistic, because the purpose of jails and prisons isn’t just to reduce recidivism but also to incapacitate people who
are a public safety risk. “Even if prison doesn’t make them a better person, you’re still stopping them from hurting other people while they’re in prison,” says Robert
VerBruggen, a policy researcher at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute think tank.

However, the research on recidivism suggests that imprisonment doesn’t make a lot of sense for low-level crimes, and that doing away with it won’t harm public
safety, says VerBruggen. “For certain borderline cases, where you have minor offenders, first-time offenders, that sort of thing, you should be careful about
incarcerating those people when you don’t need to, because that can make matters worse,” he says.

Policymakers are gradually waking up to the need for change. In the last decade, many states have
passed sentencing reforms or release policies to lower their jail and prison populations. The United
States still incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than any country in the world, but these
changes have helped to bring the total jail and prison population in the US down to 1.8 million, as of
2021, from a peak of 2.3 million in 2008.

Even more important than reducing our jail and prison population, though, is improving how we
practice incarceration, says Loeffler. He and a growing number of other reform advocates point
to rehabilitation in place of punitive sentences, a strategy that is proving successful in other countries.
In Norway, for example, rehabilitation — through high school or university education courses,
meaningful work opportunities, drug rehabilitation, exercise, art programs and social welfare services —
is a key component of life behind bars. A recent study found that spending time behind bars in a
Norwegian prison reduces the risk that a criminal will commit future crime by 29 percent.
Many other studies outside of Norway in the last few decades, probing programs from education and work skills to group counseling and drug treatment, have
found that rehabilitation programs are quite effective at reducing a prisoner’s risk of future crime. For
example, several studies have looked
at the effects of educational and vocational programs and have found that they can reduce recidivism
by 10 percent or more. Others have examined drug treatment programs and have found reductions in
recidivism of 14 percent or more.
Cognitive-behavioral programs, which use individual or group therapy to help people learn to change the thinking patterns that result in destructive or criminal
behaviors, appear to be the most effective of all. A
study reviewing a range of rehabilitation strategies found that
cognitive-behavioral programs in prisons consistently reduce recidivism by 15 percent or more, with
some leading to reductions of closer to 30 percent.
It can be tempting to look at the failures of American jails and prisons and conclude that “prisons don’t work and they can never work,” says Loeffler. But there’s
plenty of evidence that they can work — with the right approach. “Other
countries appear to be practicing incarceration
differently and producing improvement in recidivism,” says Loeffler. “What is it we can learn from those
places?”
Implementation---Focusing on rehabilitation incorporates management AND education
programs within the incarceration phase for mid OR low-level crimes.
Aitken et al. ’22 — [Aitken, J, 1-25-2022, "This House believes criminal justice should focus more on
rehabilitation.," iDebate, https://idebate.net/this-house-believes-criminal-justice-should-focus-more-on-
rehabilitation~b1025/, accessed 2-25-2024] Bharadwaj

Thecriminal justice system comprises many distinct stages, including arrest , prosecution , trial ,
sentencing , and punishment (quite often in the form of imprisonment). Rehabilitation can take place in
any of these phases as the police for example can impose on the spot penalties and cautions but these are not
last two of these many stages that there is debate over whether the criminal
controversial it is in the
justice system should focus more on rehabilitation than on retribution.

Rehabilitation is the idea of reforming a prisoner so that they can reintegrate back into society upon
their release . This process involves various programs including anger management , education
programs and even creative workshops to form another outlet for expression. It is hoped that through
this process they will become less inclined to commit crimes in the future . It seeks to prevent a
person from reoffending by taking away the desire to offend. This is very different from the idea of
‘ deterrence ’ (which is the idea of making him them afraid to offend , though he may still desire to),
and the idea of ‘ incapacitation ’ (which is the idea of taking away his their physical power to offend,
though he they may still desire to and be unafraid to) however even under these theories the assumption is that
after the offender has spent their time they will be much less of a threat to society, can be released and will not reoffend.

The retributive idea is that punishment should be determined chiefly (possibly even only) by the seriousness of the crime itself,
and not by consequentialist factors, such as whether the punishment is enough to scare (i.e. deter) the rest of society. The term
‘retribution’ is therefore unfortunate because its everyday meaning connotes ‘revenge’; it is better described as ‘desert’, ‘just
deserts’ or ‘proportionality’ theory.

Crimes such as murder or other equally severe crimes do deserve imprisonment as a punishment,
rehabilitation should be considered for lesser crimes , for example those caught looting during the
August riots in the UK. For these offenders, particularly for those who were first time offenders, imprisonment
would only add to their anger against the government and police. Whereas rehabilitation , it the form
of education and helping rebuild houses/businesses damaged by the riots, this would work on
reforming their attitudes and perceptions of the UKs legal system and therefore they would more
easily integrate into society. Almost all non-violent and crimes against property would be better met with rehabilitation
rather than lengthy imprisonment
Rearrest rates are also sky high. Decreasing re-offense rate is key to a strong criminal
justice system which spills over into broader crime reduction.
CCJ ’21 — [Council For Criminal Jusitice, 9-1-2021, "Recidivism Rates: What You Need to Know," Council
on Criminal Justice, https://counciloncj.org/recidivism_report/, accessed 2-29-2024] Bharadwaj

Rearrest rates remain stubbornly high . The cumulative five-year rearrest rate of people exiting prison in 2012, at
71%, was six percentage points lower than that of people released in 2005 (77%). The rate of rearrest for violent
offenses was virtually unchanged, while rearrests for property offenses declined by three percentage points, rearrests
for drug violations declined by six percentage points, and rearrests for public order offenses declined by four percentage points.

Rearrest by Crime Type, 2005 vs. 2012

Most people are rearrested for public order offenses . Public order offenses are the most common
reason people are rearrested following release , accounting for 58% of 2005 releases who were
rearrested and 54% of 2012 releases (Table 9, p. 9; Table 10, p. 10). Public order is a broad category that includes
offenses such as driving under the influence, disorderly conduct, and weapons violations. The share of rearrests for weapons
offenses remained relatively stable between those released in 2005 and 2012 (at 9.1% and 9.4%, respectively), as did rearrests
for driving under the influence (from 9.3% to 8.7%).
Older people return to prison at lower rates. The new BJS data underscore one of the most well-established facts in criminology: that people “age out” of crime. People released at age 24 or
younger were 64% more likely to be reincarcerated at year five (56.8%) than those released at age 40 or older (36.3%) (see Table 8). The severity of the original conviction offense is not
indicative of recidivism risk. People released in 2012 who were convicted of homicide were the least likely to be rearrested, with 41.3% rearrested at least once over five years (Table 5, 2021
report). This finding could reflect age to some degree, as it is likely that many people serving time for homicide would be over 40 at time of release owing to long sentences. By contrast, people
convicted of property crimes were most likely to be rearrested, at 78.3% over five years. This suggests that it is more important to assess risks and needs by looking at longer-term criminal
histories than the most recent conviction offense. Criminal activity is not highly specialized. People released in 2012 who had been serving a prison term for a violent crime were almost as
likely to be rearrested for a property crime (28.9%) as a violent crime (32.4%) – Table 11. Similarly, many people serving time for property crimes (29.6%) were rearrested for violent offenses
(51.2%). This aligns with prior research that suggests that most criminal behavior is not highly specialized and that labeling someone as “violent” or “non-violent” is overly simplistic. Different
metrics tell different stories. Historically, the most common measure of recidivism has been the rate at which people return to prison within three years of release. Because there were long
periods of time between national reports over the last few decades, it was commonly though that the three-year state prison recidivism rate was stagnant at about 50%. That was the return
rate of people released in 1994, a finding that wasn’t published until 2002. It was another dozen years before the next report, in 2014, tracked recidivism of those released in 2005. More
recently, BJS has reported recidivism rates more frequently and has used different measures, including the rearrest rate. While the different measures have their strengths and weaknesses, it
is important to compare apples to apples. In this case, that means distinguishing headlines about rearrest rates that top 70% over a five-year period from three-year re-incarceration rates,
which now have fallen below 40%.

The reasons for the reduction in return-to-prison rates are unclear. The drop in return-to prison rates could be explained
by changes in the behavior of those being released (i.e., committing fewer new crimes or violations
of supervision), or by changes in the behavior of the criminal justice system (such as police arrest
practices or policies regarding how probation and parole agencies respond to supervision
violations ). Federal and state investments in reentry programs have been substantial in recent years, as have private sector
initiatives to hire people with criminal records; these efforts and others may have reduced reoffending rates. Arrest rates for
minor offenses have declined over the past decade, and the total number of arrests also has been falling, from 12 million in
2005 to 9 million in 2018. During that same time, at least two dozen states have limited or even prohibited reincarceration for
technical violations of supervision, which may account for a large portion of the reduction. In addition, some of the drop in
return-to-prison rates may relate to differences in the composition of the 2005 and 2012 study cohorts. While the groups are
remarkably similar in terms of age and type of conviction offense, White people make up 43.8% of the 2012 cohort compared
with 35.4% of the 2005 cohort. More data and analysis are required to produce a fuller understanding of why the prison
recidivism rate is falling.

Recidivism studies like the recent BJS report are crucial in tracking the impact of criminal justice
reforms and reentry programs. Such studies, which track recidivism of release cohorts , should be
complemented by those that track recidivism outcomes of individuals. Studies focused on individuals paint a more accurate picture
of post-release reoffending; that’s because cohort studies are weighted toward people who serve relatively short sentences, many of whom cycle in and out of jail and prison and thus have a
much higher propensity to recidivate. Studies examining recidivism rates by individuals find much lower return-to-prison rates, on average, with one study reporting that among people sent to
prison for the first time, one third or fewer commit new offenses.
Increasing crime has a devasting impact.
US Department of Health Services ‘20 — [US Department of Health Services, 2020, "Crime and
Violence," No Publication, https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/
literature-summaries/crime-and-violence, accessed 2-29-2024] Bharadwaj

Any person can be affected by crime and violence either by experiencing it directly or indirectly, such as
witnessing violence or property crimes in their community or hearing about crime and violence from other residents.1 While
crime and violence can affect anyone, certain groups of people are more likely to be exposed. For example, the national
homicide rate is consistently higher for Black adolescents and young adults than their White counterparts.2 Low-income
neighborhoods are more likely to be affected by crime and property crime than high-income
neighborhoods.3 Types of violence include, but are not limited to, child abuse and neglect , firearm
violence, intimate partner violence , sexual violence, and elder abus e.4 In addition to the potential
for death, disability, and other injuries , people who survive violent crime endure physical pain
and suffering and may also experience mental distress and reduced quality of life .5,6 Specific
examples of detrimental health effects from exposure to violence and crime include asthma,
hypertension, cancer, stroke, and mental disorders.7
Individuals can experience different types of violence throughout the lifespan, and the negative health effects of violence can
occur at any age. Decades of research has established a connection between adverse childhood
experiences (ACEs) such as violence or abuse and lifelong health outcomes, including chronic disease
and mental disorders .8 Children can be exposed to violence such as bullying or cyberbullying, abuse,
or witnessing violence in a variety of settings, including at home or school, online, or in their
neighborhoods.9 Children and adolescents exposed to violence are at risk for poor long-term behavioral and mental health
outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, regardless of whether they are victims, direct
witnesses, or hear about the crime.10,11 Research has also shown an association between exposure to violence
in childhood and an increased likelihood of experiencing intimate partner violence as an adult.12,13

health outcomes . For example, women exposed

In adulthood, exposure to violence can also lead to poor
to intimate partner violence have an increased risk of physical health issues such as injuries and
mental disorders such as disordered eating, depression, and suicidal ideation.14 Older adults can also
experience violence, including elder abuse or intimate partner violence. 15 Evidence shows that older
adults who experience elder abuse are more likely to experience increased stress and depression or
develop fear and anxiety than those who do not experience elder abuse. 16

There are serious short- and long-term health effects from exposure to crime and violence in one’s community. For example,
one study found an association between gun-related violent crime in a neighborhood and a
reduction in park use and park-based physical activity.17 Higher rates of neighborhood safety fears may
lead to poorer self-rated physical and mental health.18 One study also found that higher rates of
neighborhood crime were associated with increased odds for adverse pregnancy outcomes in Chicago.19 Community gun
violence, which generally occurs in public spaces between non-related individuals, is a specific kind of violence that
disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic/Latino communities.20 One study conducted in 4 U.S. cities found that
people who were exposed to gun violence fatalities experienced higher levels of depression and
suicidal ideation than those who were not exposed.21