Presentation on theme: " Top of the Case Contentions Closing Write this down so you don’t forget while going through the slides: Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be."— Presentation transcript:
Write this down so you don’t forget while going through the slides: Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States’ Criminal Justice System.
1.“Rehabilitation” is “to restore to a former capacity” 2.“Ought to be valued above” is “should be considered better than” 3.“Retribution” is “the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment” 4.“Criminal Justice System” is “The system of law enforcement that is involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and incarcerating those suspected of crime” So this resolution is saying: We should consider restoring criminals better than punishing them?
Aff: In Green Wants Rehabilitation Can take no other ground Neg: In Red Prefer Retribution Could take an “equal”, “none”, or “rehab but better” approach but the last one is very unlikely and considered abusive
1. Quote supporting your side 2. Paragraph explaining the quote and stating your side 3. Definitions and Observations 4. V/VC links
The Quote has to be from someone important to everyone. You can’t have something your mom or dad/teacher/peer/or coach said. It won’t work. It should also set up the feeling of your case. You aren’t going to have a quote about Liberty and then start talking about how quitting school interferes with the Categorical Imperative. Examples: “Only the man who has enough good in him to feel the justice of the penalty can be punished.” “In keeping people straight, principle is not as powerful as a policeman.”
This paragraph always has the quote’s “author” unless you feel uncomfortable saying it. i.e. A teammate of mine had a wonderful quote by Brad Pitt. She didn’t say his name in round. This paragraph and the quote are never debated. They’re just openers, like the introductory paragraph to a speech or an essay. If you’re affirmative, this paragraph always ends in “Because (fill in reason you talked about in the last few sentences), I must stand firmly in affirmation of the Resolution ‘Resolved: (Whatever the resolution is)”
If you’re negative, you always end this paragraph with “Because (fill in reasons why again) I must stand firmly in negation of the resolution.” You don’t state the resolution again because the affirmative has already done it, and it wastes precious time. Examples: Stated above by William Hocking, justice must be a punishment. Rehabilitation not only allows the petty criminals and the good men to understand the consequences of their actions but reforms the less understanding criminals to begin feeling the justice in their penalties. It is because rehabilitation benefits both citizens and criminals that I must stand in affirmation of the resolution “Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States Criminal Justice System.”
In this quote given by Abel Hermant, humans are naturally disorderly, and simply telling people that there will be a consequence will not be enough to keep them under control. The use of governmental power and force is necessary for Justice. Because valuing rehabilitation above retribution in the United States’ Criminal Justice System would be following a “principle” instead of a “policeman” and deteriorating the social contract, I must stand firmly in negation of the resolution.
Definitions: While you don’t need to read the definition of every single word in the resolution like you do in your dissections, it’s important to define the key terms which will come up often. Observations: I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO DO THESE NEXT! I’m just telling you, so you know what they are if you see them in high school. They say specific things about the resolution that can be assumed without it actually being said. These are generally used to make it much easier to argue for your side.
Examples: I now offer definitions of words in the resolution. First, “Rehabilitation” is defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity”. “Retribution” is defined by the same source as “the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment, especially in the hereafter.” In this resolution, both rehabilitation and retribution will still be available, just one must be valued by the justice system above the other. Also, the bright line for rehabilitation will be one time through the system before moving to that of retribution, meaning if a person commits a crime, goes through rehabilitation, and then commits the same crime again, the system is allowed to apply retribution to that person.
*“Rehabilitation” is defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “to restore or bring to a condition of health or useful and constructive activity”. *“Retribution” is defined by the same source as “the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment, especially in the hereafter.” The resolution is simply asking whether rehabilitation or retribution should be prioritized, valued, and used most often in society. This also means both will still be available for use. Note: Negative does NOT say definitions unless there is a difference and your definition is necessary for you to win.
Value = What you’re trying to achieve Value Criterion (plural: criteria) = How you achieve your value The links between your V/VC are how they connect. You can’t live without breathing is a link. It tells you why you have to have that value criterion. Also, here you’re supposed to say why you need your value. That link is a resolution/value link. Generally the order is: 1.State your Value 2.Resolution/value link 3.State your value criterion 4.V/VC link
These paragraphs can be the longest part of your case or the shortest. It all depends on what kind of debater you are, what your case needs, and if you’re running aff or neg. If you know you’re good at value debates then you generally spend more time on your value paragraphs. If you feel strong on your contentions, then you write longer arguments. If your case is “squirrelly” or difficult to understand without long, thought out, and very descriptive links, then you spend a lot of time on your value paragraph. If it’s a simple connection, the paragraph is shorter.
If your aff, you have six minutes to fill so you can take much longer on a value structure paragraph. If your neg, you have about a three to four minute speech (and then three to four minutes to rebut), so you don’t have as long to set up a value paragraph. Examples: My value for today’s round is Justice, which I define as a balance between competing claims. My value criterion will be Protection of Natural Rights, because our government cannot be just without thinking of human right This was a simple link, so I didn’t need much time to explain.
My value for today’s round is Justice, which I define as giving each their due. My value criterion is adhering to the social contract, because the social contract tells us what we are due. While this was also a very simple link, this is neg value paragraph, and I had a three minute case, so it was quite effective.
1. Contention Tags 2. Explanations your argument 3. Explain what your evidence says 4. State your evidence 5. Restate what your evidence says 6. End your Argument 7. Extra! : Sub-Points Numbers 3-5 is the sandwich rule. You never say a sentence twice, and your 4 and 5 should never be the same.
These are almost like the topic sentence of your contention. What they do is state what your about to talk about or the main idea of your arguments. When presenting, you say “Contention 1: Blah blah blah blah” and then move on to the main part of your case. When typing your case up, always bold the contention and sub-point tags. This makes them easy to find when in cross- examination. Examples: 1.Criminals are still humans with rights. 2.Retributive actions are cruel and unusual punishments for a crime.
Examples: 1.Criminals are still humans with rights. 2.Retributive actions are cruel and unusual punishments for a crime. 3.Criminals are due punishment. 4.Law-Abiding citizens are due protection. Notice that no tag is longer than one sentence or ten words. Try to keep them short and sweet and to the point.
This is all so the judge knows exactly what you mean, because sometimes the tag isn’t clear. This also acts as a way of elaborating, or explaining further, your points.
Examples: “Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness…” In Rights of Man, written by Thomas Paine, it is made clear that there are natural rights that every person has. The government was founded as a solution to a need of protection for these rights. These natural rights are given by birth, by simply being a human, and every one person has each of these rights of life, liberty, and property. Yes, as a criminal, these people have given up the rights they had as a citizens, like the right to vote, but these natural rights must in turn be guaranteed for criminals by the government. Humans have a right to life and a right to liberty first and foremost and are the main rights that every person must keep despite the situation. These rights are known as “liberty rights”, which means that a government has no obligation to provide life or liberty, but it cannot interfere with either right. Unfortunately, the retributive justice system interferes with both of those rights.
“‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ In 2008, US authorities continued to hold 270 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without charge or trial, subjecting them to ‘water-boarding,’ torture that simulates drowning.” Notice how both of my affirmative explanations start with or are only quotes. This is a strong way to push your point.
Sub-Point A: For violating the Social Contract, criminals must be punished. The essence of the Social Contract states that ever person has their own rights, but you cannot use your rights to interfere with another’s rights. Our government created laws to explain how far your rights go. Breaking the law is only interfering with another citizen’s rights. The social contract not only states a person has rights and may not interfere with the rights of others, but also says that, since you are in this contract, the government must protect you. Criminals are threats to law- abiding citizens.
This becomes incredibly important in the high school circuit, but right now I only expect a sentence or two. After a few competitive years, you won’t have to always follow this sandwich rule. Examples: In regards to the right to life, our current justice system not only allows for people to be locked up in a single jail cell for life but implements the death penalty and allows for suicide in American jails and prisons. This infringement on the main natural right of a human, if not the most important for all other rights and aspects of life, is completely unjust. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states
In an article by the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, they explain how suicide is a growing issue today. Simply the right to be free, Criminals in the current justice system do not have this right. From the ACLU organization A quote from a United Nations Torture Investigator, a Mr. Juan Mendez, states that From the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law With rehabilitation, you are letting them back into society much too soon, resulting in high re-offenses and danger to society. From The Santa Barbara Independent
Just like in any research paper or essay you write, your evidence must be from a trustworthy source. Unlike research papers or essays, you must have evidence “cards”, your evidence with the cited source, on you at all times in case your opponents ask for it. Examples: 1.“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
1.“Suicide is the third leading cause of death in U.S. prisons and the second in jails. The suicide rate in prisons ranged from 18 to 40 per 100,000 during the past three decades. The jail suicide rate is nine times that of the general population, with a range of 107 to 187.5 per 100,000. The rate of 10 to 17 per 100,000 in federal prisons is slightly lower than the rates in state prisons. The highest rate in a prison is noted among death row inmates with 146.5 per 100,000... The suicide rate in prison is usually compared with the commonly accepted national general population rate of 12 per 100,000.” 2.“The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business”
1.“‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ In 2008, US authorities continued to hold 270 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without charge or trial, subjecting them to ‘water-boarding,’ torture that simulates drowning.” 2.“States need to re-examine their procedures under international law because the ability of states to impose and carry out the death penalty is diminishing as these practices are increasingly viewed to constitute torture…Methods of execution cannot be discounted as being completely painless…Following a number of executions in the United States, it has recently become apparent that the (lethal injection) regimen, as currently administered, does not work as efficiently as intended…Some prisoners take many minutes to die and others become very distressed.” You’re going to need as much evidence as possible.
“Each member of the social contract pledges his fidelity and offers his willingness to submit to punishment should he fail to make good on his promise.” “Rehabilitation is not punishment…although punishment may be used as a tool, as in, for instance, aversive conditioning programs…the…rationale for punishment must determine that the good coming from punishment outweighs the inherent evils of the punishment itself.” “A new report from California’s Department of Corrects and Rehabilitation shows felons who were released into Santa Barbara County on parole have a 71% prison recidivism rate over three years, which means S.B. has the fifteenth highest recidivism rate in the state.”
There are three kinds of LD evidence. 1.“PF Evidence” = Statistics that help prove a point. 2.“Laws and Rules” = Laws that state you can or can’t do something 3.“People who know what their talking about” = A statement from someone, usually a philosopher, who specializes in a topic relating to your argument. Using all three pieces of evidence can help a point and make it strong.
Finish the sandwich rule! Examples: The government cannot, for any reason, remove this right to life in people. Rehabilitation simply reforms these criminals and then allows them to move on with their lives instead of facing long sentences or the death penalty. There is a major issue with suicide in jails because these criminals no longer want to live. This system is violating the human right to life, making justice impossible. Constant control over a person can lead to those suicide rates mentioned before. These people have no freedom in the setting of prison or jail; there is no liberty in their environment. The government is controlling them, taking away a criminal’s right to liberty, instead of doing what they were created for.
Not only that, but he assured that the death penalty, and most forms of retribution are cumbersome, expensive, inhumane, and the deterrent rates are questionable, plus he stressed the idea that it is also torture and heavy torture. The current government’s system has absolutely no reason to treat even the worst criminals in these ways. It is unjust to subject these people who have the rights stated above to these types of torture. When punishing a criminal, we provide Justice, because we are adhering to the Social Contact’s rules. From Dr. Pollock’s Prisons: Today and Tomorrow, we can assume rehabilitation is not punishment. Restatements can either be short or long. I encourage longer ones for affirmative evidence and shorter for negative.
Just like research papers and essays, you can’t just stop in the middle of an argument. You have to end your thoughts. Examples: This system is unjust. Because these rights are given when you are born, there is no way they can be taken away, but retribution does exactly that, and there is no protection, no justice, in that. There is no way this treatment can be considered just by anyone under any means. The government was put into power for the protection of human rights, and these punishments infringe on liberty and life. Rehabilitation is a way of reforming, not punishing, a criminal so he or she is able to enter society again. The social contract asks not for the transformation but the punishment of a criminal in response to his actions. Therefore the affirmative has no way of achieving Justice. With retribution, the government is able to ensure the safety of citizens by the incarceration of criminals, because when they aren’t a member of society, they can’t be a danger to society.
Sub-Points help break down arguments in a way that’s easier to explain. You are not using sub-points until you come to me with the entire contention and explain to me how your going to them. Examples: Sub-Point A: For violating the Social Contract, criminals must be punished. The essence of the Social Contract states that ever person has their own rights, but you cannot use your rights to interfere with another’s rights. Our government created laws to explain how far your rights go. Breaking the law is only interfering with another citizen’s rights. That interference calls for punishment, because they have broken their agreement with the social contract. From the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, “Each member of the social contract pledges his fidelity and offers his willingness to submit to punishment should he fail to make good on his promise.” When punishing a criminal, we provide Justice, because we are adhering to the Social Contact’s rules.
Sub-Point B: Rehabilitation is not punishment. “Rehabilitation is not punishment…although punishment may be used as a tool, as in, for instance, aversive conditioning programs…the…rationale for punishment must determine that the good coming from punishment outweighs the inherent evils of the punishment itself.” From Dr. Pollock’s Prisons: Today and Tomorrow, we can assume rehabilitation is not punishment. Punishment is defined as “suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retaliation” by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, which is not rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is a way of reforming, not punishing, a criminal so he or she is able to enter society again. The social contract asks not for the transformation but the punishment of a criminal in response to his actions. Therefore the affirmative has no way of achieving Justice.
You have to end your entire speech with a conclusion, once again, just like research papers or essays. These conclusions tie in the first paragraph in the top of your case and your arguments together. Examples: The government only has to protect these rights to be considered just, and to protect rights, all the government must do is not interfere with them, but with retribution, these rights cannot be protected. Human rights are given when you are born and cannot be taken away by anyone, and with rehabilitation, human beings still have their rights. Retribution cannot in any way guarantee these rights will be protected, and therefore cannot be considered just. Because of the reasons given in my case, I encourage an affirmative vote on the ballot and I now stand open for cross-examination.
Our Justice System, and our government as a whole, works with a social contract. Adhering to the social contract is the only way to guarantee Justice. In the aff world, this is impossible, but in the neg world, we are able to punish and protect to ultimately achieve Justice. Because of these reasons, I encourage a negative vote on the ballot and I will now move on to attacking my opponent’s case. You’re conclusion paragraph will always end with an encouragement and a road map. As an affirmative you say you’re ready for cross examination. As a negative you say you’re moving on to attacking your opponent's case.