I stand Pro 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 National Institute of Justice, in a violent crime, a victim is harmed by or threatened with violence. Violent crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, assault and murder.
My framework is optimizing consequences that prioritize the most benefit.
Given the wording of the resolution, the debate should lead to the social and human issues related to violent and non-violent criminals. For example, alternative solutions for non-violent criminals reduces crime rate more than incarcerating them.
Under this framework, pro will win the debate by showing that only people who convicted of violent crimes should go to prison optimize consequences that prioritize the most benefit.
Contention 1 is Prison doesn’t decrease crime.
Subpoint A: Reoffending
Throughout the history, non-violent criminals always had high reconviction rate. The reason why recidivism rate is so high is because prisons don’t do their job to rehabilitate them. According to the bureau of Justice Statistics, it is reported more than half (56.7%) were arrested by the end of the first year. It was also reported that the percentage of being arrested after the release for the misdemeanor was much higher than those who committed violent crimes.
Subpoint B: Increased incarceration has marginal to-zero impact on crime.
According to Equal Justice Initiative in2017, the increased use of prisons accounted for nearly zero percent of the overall reduction in crime. Incarceration may actually increase by breaking down the social and family bonds that guide people away form crime, removing adults who would otherwise nurture children, depriving communities of income, reducing future income potential, and engendering a deep resentment toward the legal system.
Contention 2 is Prison only exert bad effects to non-violent criminals.
Prison is a place full of serious criminals who are much worse than non-violent offenders. Here, non-violent offenders would not be able to deter, but will learn how to be a worse criminal instead. Incarcerating them in prison is nothing but causing bad effects. The prison makes the criminals to go worse because the bad conditions of prisons such as prison violence, inadequate resources due to prison overcrowding, and isolation from family can lead people into hopelessness, depression, and traumatic memories. Followed by Giovanni at the University of Essex, the prisoners care about their future as three quarters as much as the normal people. And the prison can’t be the main resources of reducing their hope.
Contention 3 is Incarceration damages economy.
Subpoint A: Cost
According to The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2013, an analysis of data from Florida, Maryland, and Michigan found little or no evidence that longer prison terms for many non-violent offenders produced either incapacitation or deterrence effect. If these states have made the offenders serve shorter sentences, they could have saved $30 million to even $92million. This means that taxpayers are paying a lot while add little to no overall reduction in crime. Also, some criminal justice policies including increased incarceration, failed a cost-benefit test. According to CEA, $10billion in incarceration spending would reduce crime by 1-4% while a $10billion investment in police hiring would decrease crime by 5-16%. This matters because it proves that prison is not the cast-effective way while we are applying this sanction, and after results. With this high cost, we could do something more meaningful such as making rehabilitation program, or better environment such as more school which will prevent people from joblessness and enticement of committing crime.
Subpoint B: Criminal justice policies generate a number of indirect costs, or collateral consequences, for individuals with criminal records and their families.
Executive office of the President of the United State in 2016 reports that the probability that a family is in poverty increases by nearly 40% while a father is incarcerated. Even after the offender is released, it is difficult to find employment, having a criminal record. Recent job application experiments find that applicants with criminal records were 50% less likely to receive an interview request or job offer, relative to identical applicants with no criminal record. To deter, the offenders need job that can support the offenders and their family. If they don’t have the ability to earn money by themselves, they might commit crime again which leads to another cycle and can’t contribute to social economy.
This links to my framework because not sending non-violent criminals gratifies the criminals, their families, taxpayer, citizens, and others. For these reasons, I urge a Pro ballot.
Writer: Daniel Kim
Comments