I stand Con on the topic, “Resolved: In the United States Criminal Justice system, only people convicted of violent crimes should be sentenced to prison.
I’ll start with definitions.
According to Federal Bureau of Investigation, minor crime are petty crimes of theft and damage to any personal property or unsocial behavior punishable by fines or simple imprisonments in law or let off by warnings. Major crimes are against a state or the constitution and invite severe punishment including capital punishment.
A felony is a more serious crime than a misdemeanor and carries much higher penalties. Misdemeanor sentences of incarceration are usually served in the local city or county jail, while felony sentences are served in prison.
Our framework is prioritizing public safety by achieving justice. One main reason why non-violent criminal still go to prison is because prison sometimes is the best way to keep the public society safe in a just way. The right criminal justice system should achieve healthy society, and healthy society is the effect of achieved justice.
Thus, If I prove that only sentencing violent criminals to prison are wrong, I win this debate.
Contention 1: Prison prioritizes public safety by achieving justice
Other solution doesn’t achieve deterrence effect, nor the decrease of recidivism
According to Leonard A. Sipes, who was former Associate Professor for criminology” 2017 March,28 (and Bureau of Justice Statistics) People has a 10% or less possibility followed by prison or other rehabilitation system and community corrections program. He has concluded that since the 90% of rehabilitation program fail, the rehabilitation program doesn’t work. Non-violent prisoners have a high recidivism rate according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and if they are with a target that they can commit crime, it’s much easy for them to commit the crime. (Followed by the 2002 Oregon Department of Corrections, of the eight alternative sanctions evaluated, only monetary fines resulted in lower recidivism than probation. Sanctions that failed to reduce recidivism were intensive supervision, arrest, restitution, boot camp, scared straight, drug testing, and electronic monitoring.) Also, followed by State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy’s Greg Jones and Michael Connelly, Ph.D. 2001, alternative sanctions and prisons are very similar in terms of their effects on recidivism. They conducted an experiment with boot camps, day reporting, which makes offender to report to a central location five times per week or as specified otherwise by their supervisor, and may be subjected to random drug testing, House Arrest/Electronic Monitoring, Community Service, and it showed no decrease of recidivism nor decrease of incarceration rate. However, According to Richard Rosenfield, professor in University of Missouri in 2015The research was concluded that the incarceration has a 10 to 25 % of crime reduction.
This is important because it shows that alternative solution and rehabilitation program is not effective, and prison still achieves punishment, and incapacitation. This leads to our framework because it shows that the prison is the best way to achieve public safety by just way.
This leads to our framework because it proves that prison is the good way to reach public safety by increasing incapacitation.
Contention 2: Some of the non-violent criminals should be sentenced to prison in order to achieve proportional punishment
I have proven that prison has more benefit than alternative sanctions and this is why some non-violent criminals should be sentenced to prison.
The US criminal justice system has a moral obligation to punish criminals properly. Followed by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2003, the central wrong in crime is that the criminals unfairly usurp liberty to pursue his own interests and plans in a manner contrary to the common boundaries delineated by the law; therefore, the punishment of taking their liberty and freedom away is needed. (Giving them alternative sanctions for those who committed major crime is giving prisoners a privilege, and making them access to rehabilitation program is creating the ironic situation of a victim paying for criminal’s “better life program”, which barely has a possibility of success.)
These are examples of unproportionable punishment when we send only violent criminals.
According to Richard Rosenfield, a professor in the University of Missouri, in 2015 The research was concluded, the increase of the crime rate in 1980 was caused by violent criminals. But when we increased the incarceration length of both violent and nonviolent criminals, 25% of the crime rate dropped, especially in non-violent criminals. This is important because this means that non-violent criminals is harmful enough and is contributing to making society into more crime affordable way.
It’s not always true that non-violent criminals are misdemeanor or minor criminals. For example, followed to Slate, 2015, people were just part in a violent crime but never used violence and people with illegal gun possessors are separated into violent criminals even though they didn't damage others physically. However, followed by non-violent criminals such as people who’ve stolen a property between 500 dollars and 1000 dollars, who are separated into nonviolent felony theft, can be sometimes much more major and harmful to people than violent criminals. This matter because it proves that making every non-violent criminal unable to be sentenced to prison cause an unproportionable balance between punishment and crime.
To make criminals who are non-violent but committed major crimes to deserve their punishments proportionally and to be separated from the public to achieve public safety and justice, I argue that some non-violent criminals should be sentenced to prison.
Writer: Amy Jeong
Commenti