Prison Reform 1

Prison Reform Topic Paper

Submitted By: Toni Nielson - CSU, Fullerton

Unique Educational Opportunities

"Prisons are closed institutions. They are established and funded by governments to hold people against
their will", but why punish (Zyl Smit, 2010)? What is the purpose of prison? This fundamental question
stirs up a significant amount of debate. The government, citizens, educators, and even prisoners are
divided about the right answers. There is disagreement in the US about the purpose of the prison system.
On the one hand, the regulations of the prison system may seek deterrence, incapacitation, or retribution
to avoid appearing too soft on criminals (Zyl Smit, 2010; Rossum, 2003). On the other hand, the
regulations of the prison system may seek to opportunities to resocialize prisoners or to effect changes in
the character, attitudes, or behavior of the convicted offender (Zyl Smit, 2010; Harvard Law Review,
2010). Which approach is the most effective for a society that decides to punish?

What do we do about those who commit crimes? This questions seems to have a more definitive answer
in the US. The last four decades of American criminal justice have been shaped by the public appeal to
get tough on crime (Colgan, 2006). "Since the mid-1970s, the United States has engaged in a "race to
incarcerate" that has resulted in a prison population expanded to a level previously unknown in any
democratic society" (Burt, 2010). The US has over 2 million of its citizens incarcerated, which accounts
for 25% of the world's imprisoned population (Forman, 2011). The system has grown seven fold since the
70's and continues to expand steadily every year (Forman, 2011; Colgan, 2006). "(T)here are various
types and divisions of prisons in the United States including county jails, state prisons and federal prisons,
all of which are further delineated based on minimum, medium, and maximum security. Nonetheless, and
despite this uniformity, prison populations have increased at all levels" (Kendrick, 2011). Our
incarceration rates are "five to ten times higher than the rates in other industrialized nations"
(Chemerinsky, 2008). The US is in the middle of an unique prison crisis.

Prisoners are not popular topic politically and generally prisoners have little political power. Many felons
are permanently disenfranchised. There is no political constituency with the clout to "pressure for
sufficient funding for prison facilities or prison services" (Chemerinsky, 2008). Prison guards and their
unions are powerful, but they often argue for more prison time and not for improving prison conditions
(Chemerinsky, 2008). Political rhetoric turns prison programs into a target by framing education and
health care as coddling inmates who do not deserve tools for life improvement or even basic life
sustaining care (Colgan, 2006). As a result, prisoners often do not have adequate medical, mental heath
care, educational programs, and facility access. The vast majority of Americans say if they knew someone
was going to be incarcerated, they would be concerned for that person's physical healthy & safety and
health (Dolovich, 2009). The conditions of the prison are not just a question of quality of life, but also
often literally a question of life and death (Zyl Smit, 2010).

Although prisoners are an unpopular minority, the impact of the prison system on society is tremendous.
Of course, the prison system is a reflection of our rule of law, but it also genuinely impacts the
communities prisoners are taken from and returned to. "What comes in, must go out. Although life and
death sentences receive the most press, most federal inmates serve a finite prison sentence" (Harvard Law
Review, 2010). 95-97% of our more than 2 million incarcerated citizens will be returned to society
(Colgan, 2006). "Presently, approximately 650,000 individuals are released each year from federal and
state prisons in the United States" (Pinard, 2006). After release, sometimes life for an ex-convicts gets
more difficult than prison life; ex-convicts are often released with only the clothes on their backs - "no
Prison Reform 2

money, no transportation, no clothing, no toiletries, no housing, no way to contact people" (Lyles-

Chockley, 2009). The collateral consequences, such as stigmas associated with prison time, economic
distress, deterioration of social networks, can be devastating to effectively reentering the community
(Lyles-Chockley, 2009). The heavy toll such consequences pay on ex-convicts contribute to high rates of
recidivism.

How does society, government, or even prison officials prison the prison system produces successful
criminal justice? To determine success in the prison system, the bench marks are reducing incarceration
rates and reducing recidivism. Fewer prisoners means fewer crimes are being committed. Fewer
returning prisoners means the prison system is effective. The value of the prison system is not in locking
away citizens permanently, but instead to keep people out of prisons by creating the conditions for a law-
abiding life. By both measures, the status quo is yielding questionable results. 51% of all prisoners
released are returned to the prison system and nearly 30% are returned within the first six months of their
release (Lyles-Chockley, 2009). Roughly two-thirds of all prisoners are rearrested within three years
(Pinard, 2006). The high rates of incarceration and recidivism have reinvigorated debate about the
purpose of the prison. The time is ripe to debate prison reform. "America's penal system needs a top-to-
bottom overhaul -- and a movement of people ready to do something about it is taking shape nicely"
(McCarthy, 2011).

The status quo overwhelmingly favors a punishment or retribution approach to the prison (Simmons,
2007). "Today, rehabilitative goals are strikingly absent from both the federal sentencing guidelines and
state sentencing measures, as a result of a radical change during the 1970s wherein rehabilitation went
from common to condemned" (Harvard Law Review, 2010). A resolution for a debate would need to
suggest a change in the direction of current prison policy. Thus the thesis of our suggested area of
controversy: Rehabilitation should be the guiding theme of any resolution crafted about prison reform.
The prison reform discussion is heating up about the dangers of a punitive only system and reconsidering
rehabilitation specifically, reentry programs across the country (Lyles-Chockley, 2009; Nixon et al,
2008).

Rehabilitation has been considered a primary goal of the prison system throughout the twentieth century,
even though it has not been in vogue for many decades (Harvard Law Review, 2010). The debate about
rehabilitation has a long, complex history in the US. Bottom line: "Effective programming requires
money, effort, and a recommitment to rehabilitation. But it is not only an investment in safe prisons and
jails. It is also an investment in safe and healthy communities" (Gibbons & Katzenbach, 2006).
Rehabilitation is a critical to overcome the collateral consequences of being a convict which limit the
convicted individuals social, economic, and political opportunities after release (Pinard, 2006). If society
wants ex-prisoners to succeed, to be rehabilitated, then it has to provide them tools while they are still
incarcerated to prepare for the moment of release to reenter society and reenter their families and
communities. Reentry begins inside the prison with programs that provide inmates with the stability
necessary to transition back into their communities (Muhlhausen, 2010). Offender reentry programs
would be an excellent way to narrow a debate about rehabilitation, but before I get to the sorts of
affirmative and negative I think are viable under a prison rehabilitation topic, I would like to discuss the
benefits of prison reform as a controversy area to the debate community.

The debate community has much to benefit by debating prison reform. First, a growing number of teams
are critical on the affirmative. Part of their frustration with policy-oriented debate is the topic pushes a
conservative perspective by avoiding real areas of controversy relevant to left oriented debaters. If as a
community, we want critical debate teams to defend a plan, then we should consider giving them a
resolution they cannot reasonably refuse. At some point, the place of the radical rightly belongs to the
negative, but only when the topic provides a place for substantive structural change. Some will argue that
no resolution is enough for a K team, but if that is so then there is no harm in a topic badly in need of
Prison Reform 3

discussion and the negatives framework ground is greatly improved by the number of topical affirmatives
available to a critical affirmative. The topic provides plenty of core policy making ground in the areas of
race, class, gender, and general power relations.

Second, if a large percentage of debaters enter into law school, political science, or social justice work
post their undergraduate studies, then the prison topic would be valuable as practical research for their
future studies. Debate skills, such as research, listening, public speaking, personal expression, problem-
solving skills, are highly transferable in these areas of graduate study. We are all familiar with research
indicating 70% of judges recommend participation in intercollegiate debate as a precursor to law school
(Freely & Steinberg, 2009). Debaters themselves list law school preparation as one of the advantages of
intercollegiate debate (Williams, McGee & Worth, 2001). You aren't likely go to law school and skip
over a discussion of the penal system. The debate community has an opportunity to prepare our
undergraduates for work in a field they are most likely to go into.

Third, it has been some time since the NDT debated a prison reform topic. Arguably, there has not been a
resolution solely devoted to encouraging debate on prison reform at the college level. There have been
two topics closely related to the proposed controversy area. In the 1965-1966 season, the NDT debated
"Resolved: That law enforcement agencies in the United States should be given greater freedom in the
investigation and prosecution of crime." And, in 1994-1995 season, the NDT debated " Resolved: That
the federal government should substantially change rules and/or statues governing criminal procedure in
federal courts in one or more of the following areas: pretrial detention, sentencing." These are similar
topics, but they are different in that the 1st encourages more people to enter prisons and the 2nd pertains
only the process of being placed in prison which is a legal topic. There was also a high school version of a
prison reform topic in 1989-1990 season; "Resolved: That the federal government should adopt a
nationwide policy to decrease overcrowding in prisons and jails in the United States." This topic is
probably too broad for college debate, but could yield interesting discussion if the topic committee
wanted to head in that direction. A different version of a prison reform resolution could focus on the
conditions inside the prison which would provide a new direction than previous topics by prohibit the
negative policy affirmatives (aff's that eliminate programs) and being a domestic topic instead of a legal
topic.

Our silence on mass incarceration is telling. The temptation is to look away from the problems of the US
prison system because they may not impact us directly; prisoners are literally removed from our line of
sight. Unfortunately, whether we are looking or not, "everyday judges send thousands of men and women
to jail or prison" (Gibbons & Katzenbach, 2006). This controversy area is an important debate opportunity
to speak on a subject impacting families and communities across the US.

Mainstream Options for Policy Debate

A. Mainstream Options for Policy Change

Federal government action is necessary to reform our prisons. Congress recognizes the need for reform
and has ordered advisory panels on mandatory sentencing and incarceration, but that advise has yet to
yield substantial policy change (Kendrick, 2011). The Congress must fund prisons adequately or change
the laws encouraging the incarceration crisis. The Prison Litigation Reform Act places the power to
reform the prison system, in terms of prisoner advocacy, in the hands of federal government; the PLRA
components "essentially devastated the prospects for using the federal courts in the service of prisoner
advocacy or progressive prison reform, as collectively they restrict types and duration of relief and
remedy, place barriers in the way of prisoner's ability to file suit at all, and mediate against the prospects
of finding legal representation" (Ribet, 2010). A large part of the goal of the PLRA is to reduce federal
judiciary's management of correctional facilities (Overland, 2011). The prison rights movement of the
Prison Reform 4

civil rights era in combination with the shear growth in the prison population increased the number of
lawsuits by prisoners to improve prison conditions; the PLRA responded in a way that has severely
limited prison advocacy groups seeking change in the courts (Overland, 2011). By limiting prisoners
access to the courts, the Congress has made legislation a virtual mandate for improving the lives of those
in the prison system (Overland, 2011).

The following discussion is focused around mainstream reentry and rehabilitation programs which could
be increased (created or expanded) by Congress.

One clear option for prison reform is the improvement of and increase of education and training
programs. "Prisoners--who are less likely to have completed high school or obtained a General
Equivalency Diploma (GED) than the general population--typically enter prison with an educational
disadvantage. In fact, there is a direct correlation between a lack of education and the probability of
incarceration" (Colgan, 2006). Leaving prison with that same education deficiency has been linked to
recidivism; in contrast, educational programs are linked with lowering recidivism (Colgan, 2006). Basic
education, vocational programs, & post-secondary education are all possible affirmatives on a prison
reform topic (Nixon et al, 2008). Affirmatives may mandate vocational programs offering particular
career training to fill holes in the economy (Colgan, 2006). Affirmatives could reform the fees system
used by education programs which would encourage enrollment in education programs. Affirmatives
could provide incentives for community colleges to offer programs for prisoners to help with applications,
necessary testing, and financial aid.

Another affirmative option is work release. The unemployment rate for ex-offenders is 33% (Burt,
2010). "There are a number of studies that demonstrate that employment is a fundamental component of
the reentry process, and that ex-offenders who are able to find stable employment are much more likely to
succeed in their rehabilitation than those who cannot find work" (Nuñez-Neto, 2008). Without income
offenders are likely to commit another crime as a means of support (Burt, 2010). "Employment is one of
the strongest predictors that an ex-offender will be successful after release and not backslide into crime"
(Nuñez-Neto, 2008). If ex-offenders face continual rejection in the labor market, then they are more likely
to give up looking for a job and turn to criminal activity to provide an income. Work release allows
prisoners to engage in full-time or part-time employment in order to facilitate their re-entry into the labor
market after release. Legislation could introduce partnerships between the states Department of
Corrections and businesses to provide incentives for businesses to hire prisoners from work release
programs post-release (Colgan, 2006). The federal government could also create temporary job programs
for ex-prisoners (Burt, 2010).

Drug and alcohol treatment programs are a practical necessity that many affirmatives could advocate.
"Nationally, at least 30 percent of convicted persons report they used illegal drugs at the time of their
offense" (Colgan, 2006). Roughly 80% of prisoners report drug use in their history, even if not at the time
of the crime (Colgan, 2006). Providing chemical dependency treatment programs would help a large
segment of the prison population. The general population believes that putting an addict in prison
eliminates their ability to access the substances of their addiction which cures the addiction, but after
release without a treatment program many recovering addicts return to substance abuse (Kendrick, 2011).
There is solid empirical evidence that ordering inmates into treatment programs and getting them to
participate in treatment reduces recidivism (Kendrick, 2011).

Health services are a fundamental need in prisons. Health care costs are a huge issue for prison systems
and when the state is completely responsible for footing the bill the quality of inmate care may suffer
(Quinn, 2009). Inmate health care "is frequently so inadequate that "preventable suffering and death
behind bars" has been "normalized" (Dolovich, 2009). There are facilities with four or five thousand
prisoners and only three or four doctors and some physicians are limited to work in correctional facilities
Prison Reform 5

because they are not qualified to care for the general population (Gibbon & Katzenbach, 2006). Courts
have held that inmates have the right to health care, but the quality of the care is still up for debate
(Quinn, 2009). 30 states have some form of co-payments for health care required of inmates which
discourages prisoners from seeking treatment (Quinn, 2009; Gibbon & Katzenbach, 2006). The
Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons recommends co-pay laws be revoked and
Medicaid and Medicare be extended to eligible prisoners (Gibbon & Katzenbach, 2006).

Mental health services are desperately needed in prisons. The prevalence of mental illness in prisons is 2
to 4 times higher than that of the general public (Colgan, 2006). Many prisoners do not receive any
treatment for mental illness. There is a lack of staffing, medication, and supervision for prisoners with
mental illnesses. "The consequences of failing to provide mental health care include suffering, self-
mutilation, rage and violence, unnecessary placement in segregation, victimization, and suicide" (Colgan,
2006). The lack of mental health care also poses a risk to inmates who are not ill because inmates with
mental illness are more likely to cause disciplinary problems than other inmates. Another significant
problem is the inability to reenter society; untreated mental illness makes it more difficult for inmates to
become productive, law-abiding citizens (Kendrick, 2011). The most common treatment is segregation
which mental health professional argue often worsens the illness (Colgan, 2006).

Children & family services are an important part of successful rehabilitation. 1.5 million children have
parents in the DOC (Colgan, 2006). There is significant evidence about the impact of prisons on family
and social networks. Children are taken from parents when they are incarcerated and often there is no
visitation once the children are removed. Family structures face intense strain when prisoners reenter the
family (Lyles-Chockley, 2009). Parents strain to reconnect with their children and children can go
through serious trauma as parents reenter their lives; neither have had a chance to build a relationship
during incarceration (Lyles-Chockley, 2009). The racial disparities in incarceration rates have a
devastating impact on communities practically dissolving important social networks, particularly in black
families (Lyles-Chockley, 2009). There will be affirmatives providing services for prisoners to interact
with their children (Colgan, 2006).

The largest aff on the topic would be comprehensive transitional service programs, which are all in
one programs including education, job training and placement, life skills, family reunification services,
assistance, chemical dependency treatment, and mental health services (Colgan, 2006). Several states
(Tennessee, Hawaii, & New York) have comprehensive programs that could be modeled on a federal
level (Colgan, 2006). Holistic reentry services provide for prisoners needs across the board instead of in
small pieces. Comprehensive reentry programs recognize the linkages between jobs, education, and social
services. "By starting a prisoner with a Plan which identifies all of his or her needs and addresses them
holistically, the likelihood of success while in prison and upon release are improved" (Colgan, 2006). In
general, access to social services which some are explicitly denied would help convicts overcome
significant obstacles to reentry.

B. Mainstream Options for Negating

Economy and politics disads are relatively obvious negative ground. Although these are topic specific
given the depth of literature in the controversy area of providing more funds for prisoners, they are also
disads that link to most every topic. I have covered econ and politics DA's, but I tried to give more depth
to potentially less familiar discussions available unique to the controversy area. This list is not exhaustive.

Case Debate - There is a healthy solvency debate about the effectiveness of criminal rehabilitation or
offender reentry programs to reduce recidivism and built the skills they claim to produce in prisoners
(Muhlhausen, 2010). Some argue rehabilitation programs, like reentries, backfire in every possible way
and punishment paradigms are more effective at reducing criminal activity (Logan & Gaes, 1993). David
Prison Reform 6

Rothman argues rehabilitation programs are actually a longer harsher punishment than serving one's time
would be in a punishment or retribution paradigm (Harvard Law Review, 2010). "(T)urning confinement
toward the purpose of rehabiltation usually ends by allowing rehabilitation to justify confinement" (Lin,
2000, p. 29). Even when programs work as described, there is reason to doubt the usefulness of the
program in actually rehabilitating prisoners. "Prison rehabilitation programs, especially if they are
successful, confer valuable but unearned benefits on the undeserving at the expense of law-abiding
taxpayers" (Logan & Gaes, 1993). It is quite possible that prison, a place of brutal conditions, is just not
an environment where rehabilitation is possible (Rossum, 2003).

Politics DA's - Prison reform has been linked fears of being soft on crime, which is the political
equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater (Colgan, 2006; Nixon et al, 2008; Joseph & Saavedra,
2009). I would like to note that the political effect of prison reform is not beyond debate; conservative
leaders, such as Newt Gingrich, are considering prison reform to reduce overcrowding and recidivism
(Fausett, 2011).

Spending, Education, & Health Care Trade-Off DA's - This is one of the most common arguments in the
literature base for prison reform. Opportunities for prisoners to improve their lives are considered too
costly for those being punished for their criminal activity and the result is a constant cutting of prison
budgets and programs (Colgan, 2006). The 2011 federal budget has allocated 6.8 billion to the Bureau
for Prisons and prison officials argue the budget is tight as it is (Johnson, 2010). California alone spends 9
billion on its prisons (Kim, 2009). Public funds spent on prisons directly trade-off with other portions of
the budget, such as education (McCarthy, 2011). Powerful group such as the NAACP are publically
calling to cut prison spending and move that money to education (Shah, 2011). NAACP President
Benjamin Todd Jealous stated, "This multidecade trend of prioritizing incarceration over education is not
sustainable" (Shah, 2011). Education groups, such as the U.S. Student Association, argue the message to
youth is clear when prison with the state budget battle for funding (Shah, 2011).

Privatization - Privatization schemes are various and complex. The concept seems simple on face, but
"privatization of prisons can take a variety of forms, spanning from no facility ownership and partial
operational administration to total facility ownership and total operational administration by the private
contractor" (Pozen, 2003). Even though critics charge privatization with the immorality of making a
profit off of punishment, privatization is a mainstream concept in criminology and debate has ripened
around how to best manage private criminal justice (Pozen, 2003). The opportunity for deep counter-plan
debate is very rich and would increase the burdens on both teams to prepare for many variations of
privatization built into the literature base. Privatization prevents a government monopoly on an important
public service and once government services are privatized the trade-off tends to be permanent (Volokh,
2008).Supporters of privatization contend it solves fiscal constraints the prison system places on the
government and spurs innovation in the industry (Pozen, 2003). Additionally, from a critique debate
perspective, private criminal justice may provide a better type of restorative justice reducing the use of
violence to resolve violence and creating a better relationship between the offender and victim (Simmons,
2007).

Community Corrections - Community corrections are alternatives to jail or prison; specifically they are
"[t]he use of a variety of officially ordered program-based sanctions that permit convicted offenders to
remain in the community under conditional supervision as an alternative to an active prison sentence."
(Kendrick, 2011). Not only will offenders "not have their liberty as restricted as they would if
incarcerated," but they will also be able to maintain "meaningful connections" with family and the
community such as developing relationships with significant others and maintaining contact with
children, all while pursuing vocational and educational goals (Kendrick, 2011). The counter-plan has
excellent solvency cards for affirmative cases and avoids a number of disads, such as politics or
federalism.
Prison Reform 7

Courts - Prison inmates have a history of going to the federal courts to "challenge prison conditions and
practices" (Schoenfeld, 2010). Prisoners rights fall under the scope of negative rights - the right to be free
from immediate physical violence (Schoenfeld, 2010). Additionally, the Eighth Amendment, which
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, can be interpreted to include reforming prison conditions
(Dolovich, 2009). Essentially, those who interpret the Eighth Amendment as covering prison conditions
argue, "a prisoner whose basic needs are not met receives a more severe punishment than those prisoners
who receive minimally adequate provisions" (Dolovich, 2009). Prisoners who suffer severe dysentery
from contaminated water, gaping wounds that go unstitched, or an insufficient diet, a functionally a slow
starvation, are suffering a cruel punishment that other prisoners who do live in these conditions are not
suffering (Dolovich, 2009). The courts counter-plan may be a debate classic, but in terms of prison
literature, it's an essential element of debate about government action.

States/Federalism - The prison system exists at both a national and state level. There will inevitably be
some federalism debate about the role of the federal government in prison reform. Conservative groups
argue about the role of the federal government in prison reform. Groups like the Heritage Foundation
sometimes support reform, but argue that "(i)ncreasing the national government’s involvement in
combating the recidivism of state and local prisoners is detrimental to quintessential federal
responsibilities" (Muhlhausen, 2010). The argument is a good setup for a counter-plan solvency, because
this line of reasoning contends problems common to many states create the impetus for federal action
(Muhlhausen, 2010). Although a states/federalism debate does not elicit excitement in the debate
community, there is a quality states/federalism literature base surrounding prison reform.

International Human Rights Regimes - International human rights laws affirm "the right to be free of
torture and of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" (Zyl Smit, 2010).  The UN, OAS,
and the ICCPR have strong stances on prisoner rights and can be considered potential agents for counter-
plans (Zyl Smit, 2010). American exceptionalism, a human rights modeling or soft power disad
depending on how its framed, is a reasonable net benefit to these sort of counter-plans in addition to
anything else with a domestic US law link debate (Goldsmith, 2005).

Prison Abolition - Prison abolition stands for a large strain of thought that criticizes the prison industrial-
complex. The existence of the prison is an affront to democracy, particularly for Latin and African
American people (Mendieta, 2006). Although simple in its inception, like any developed corpus of
thought, prison abolition is not a unified concept; "there are many versions of prison abolitionism --
including those that propose to abolish punishment altogether and replace it with reconciliatory responses
to criminal acts" (Davis & Rodriguez, 2000). In a basic sense, prison abolition is about changing the
social landscape to move away from punishment paradigms. Abolitionists propose reconciliation or
restorative justice as alternatives to punishment (Davis & Rodriguez, 2000). Frankly, there's not a critique
read in policy debate that couldn't claim prison abolition as a reasonable alternative (Mendieta, 2006).
There would be lots of room to flush out what each author means by prison abolition.

Potential directions for wording papers

There are a couple of useful resources for finding terminology to help in the construction of a resolution.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons, various state Department of Corrections, the Department of Justice, and
the Reentry Policy Council are all good contextual places to find topic terminology.

A key term given the thesis of the controversy area is rehabilitation. The dilemma faced by prison
officials and the government is: what is rehabilitation? If one searches rehabilitation, they will find it used
in many different senses. Broad definitions for rehabilitation in a criminal justice context would include
anything that prepares a prisoner for a productive life after release (West's Encyclopedia of American
Prison Reform 8

Law, 2008). A better term is probably "criminal rehabilitation" because it is much more specific to the
context of incarceration. The underlying theory of criminal rehabilitation is "the notion that a primary
purpose of penal treatment is to effect changes in the characters, attitudes, and behavior of convicted
offenders, so as to strengthen the social defense against unwanted behavior, but also to contribute to the
welfare and satisfactions of offenders" (Kennard, 1989). There are contextual definitions which
distinguishes major concepts of incarceration. For example, "deterrence, like incapacitation, seeks to
protect the community from crime, whether by the same person or future putative criminals; rehabilitation
strives to reform the criminal to promote his productive reintegration into the community; and retribution,
unlike vengeance, is understood to vindicate certain communal norms and interests" (Sloane, 2007).
Although rehabilitation is a key term in the literature, I wouldn't recommend it as a resolution term. Even
with narrowing by phrase, such as criminal rehabilitation program/services, rehabilitation is difficult to
define in practice and is more of a model or theory of criminal justice. There are other terms which would
provide a more specific policy context than rehabilitation and those programs are functionally
rehabilitation programs which would always implicitly include the concept in debate.

Recidivism could be included in resolution language. A resolution written around reducing recidivism
would probably have to require the affirmative enact or expand programs that make reductions in
recidivism an explicit goal. There are a number of definitions of recidivism found in law reviews (Burt,
2010). A narrow concept of recidivism would reduce the number of topical programs. "The lion's share of
research on post release criminal activity focuses largely on recidivism defined as failing to meet the
terms of one's parole. The common metrics of post release parole failure include the rates at which
parolees abscond from parole supervision, the proportion of parolees that are rearrested within given time
periods of release, and the proportion of parolees returned to the custody of the state or federal prison
systems for violating the terms of their parole. " (Raphael & Stoll, 2004). The affirmatives under this
interpretation of recidivism would be largely offender re-entry programs designed to prevent post release
parole failure. The addition of the word recidivism to the resolution might eliminate some offender
reentry programs that only improve the life of the offender, such as health care services. Contextual
topicality evidence would link the offender reentry program to an attempt to reduce recidivism.

One phrase that could be useful in crafting a resolution would be offender or prisoner reentry programs or
services. This is a large term covering a variety of services useful to significant prison reform. As noted
earlier, Congress has requested inquiry into prison reform. Offender reentry can be interpreted broadly to
encompass all services and activities to prepare ex-convicts for return to society. In terms of policy
making, the broad definition is often difficult to manage; therefore, a "more narrow definition is often
stated in two parts: correctional programs that focus on the transition to the community (such as
prerelease, work release, halfway houses, or other programs specifically aiming at reentry) and programs
that have initiated some form of treatment (such as substance abuse, life skills, education, or mental
health) in prison that is linked to community programs that will continue the treatment once the prisoner
has been released" (Nuñez-Neto, 2008).

Federal offender reentry programs are overseen by a variety of federal actors including: the Department
of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of Health & Human Services, and
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Nuñez-Neto, 2008).

Recommendations of the author

The one serious recommendation I have is less from the perspective of someone working in the topic
literature and more from the perspective of a debate coach and community member. Resolutions provide
the negative with better ground when the affirmative must advocate a positive action. The aff should have
to do something that creates not withdraws or eliminates. It is very difficult to garner ground off of
affirmatives that basically get to claim the status quo is bad with little need to defend a new program,
Prison Reform 9

unless that ground is agent counter-plans. Given this perspective, the topics below operate from the belief
the affirmative should implement/advocate/create/increase prison programs in the plan text.

I recommend considering the following topic wordings:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase funding for existing
offender reentry programs in prisons in one or more of the following areas: education/training, work
release, drug/alcohol treatment, mental health, health, & children and family services. *Any variation of
these areas seem pretty core to the literature base.

Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase offender reentry programs
targeting recidivism in U.S. prisons.

Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase offender reentry programs
in prisons in one or more of the following areas: education/training, work release, drug/alcohol treatment,
health, & children and family services.

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase programs to reduce
recidivism in one or more of the following areas: education/training, work release, drug/alcohol
treatment, health, & children and family services.

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase criminal rehabilitation
programs and/or services.

This is a variation on the high school topic that could work. My dilemma with this topic is two fold: 1.
it's very broad & 2. it's a negative action. The debate community found this topic educational and
worthwhile so it probably merits a revisit by the topic committee if this controversy area is selected.

Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a national policy to decrease overcrowding
in prisons and jails in the United States.
Prison Reform 10

Works Cited

Burt, Rose M. (Spring, 2010). Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy, "MORE THAN A SECOND
CHANCE: AN ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT APPROACH TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM AMONG
CRIMINAL EX-OFFENDERS", 6 Tenn. J. L. & Pol'y 9, database: lexis.

Chemerinsky, Erwin (Fall, 2008). Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, "The Essential but Inherently
Limited Role of the Courts in Prison Reform", 13 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 307, database: lexis.

Colgan, Beth A. (Fall/Winter, 2006). Seattle Journal for Social Justice, "PRISON AND DETENTION:
Teaching a Prisoner to Fish: Getting Tough on Crime by Preparing Prisoners to Reenter Society", 5
Seattle J. Soc. Just. 293, database: lexis.

Davis, Angela Y. & Rodriguez, Dylan. (2000). Social Justice, "The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A
Conversation", Volume: 27. Issue: 3, p. 212.

Dolovich, Sharon. (October, 2009). New York University Law Review, "CRUELTY, PRISON
CONDITIONS, AND THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT", 84 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 881, database: lexis.

Fausset, Richard. (January 29, 2011). Los Angeles Times, "Prison reforms no longer taboo for
conservatives", p. A1.

Forman Jr., James. (January, 2011). Cardozo Law Review, "ACKNOWLEDGE RACE IN A "POST-
RACIAL" ERA: THE BLACK POOR, BLACK ELITES, AND AMERICA'S PRISONS", 32 Cardozo L.
Rev. 791, database: lexis.

Freely, Austin J. & Steinberg, David L. (2009). Argumentation and Debate. p. 28-38.

Gibbon, John J. & Katzenbach, Nicholas de B. (June, 2006). "Confronting Confinement", 11,
http://www.prisoncommission.org/pdfs/Confronting_Confinement.pdf

Goldsmith, Jack. (Fall, 2005). University of St. Thomas Law Journal, "AMERICAN
EXCEPTIONALISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY", 3 U. St. Thomas L.J. 311, database: lexis.

Harvard Law Review. (March, 2010). "DESIGNING A PRISONER REENTRY SYSTEM

HARDWIRED TO MANAGE DISPUTES", 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1339, database: lexis.

Johnson, Kevin. (February 4, 2010). USA TODAY, " Budget would give federal prisons $528M boost",
p. 2A.

Joseph, Brian & Saavedra, Tony. (December 13, 2009). Orange County Register, "Perpetuating a flawed
system", database: lexis.

Kendrick, Karina. (Winter, 2011). West Virginia Law Review, "THE TIPPING POINT: PRISON
OVERCROWDING NATIONALLY, IN WEST VIRGINIA, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
REFORM", 113 W. Va. L. Rev. 585, database: lexis.

Kennard, Karen L. (March, 1989). California Law Review, "The Victim's Veto: A Way to Increase
Victim Impact on Criminal Case Dispositions", 77 Calif. L. Rev. 417, database: lexis.
Prison Reform 11

Kim., Chol Daniel (2009). McGeorge Law Review, "REVIEW OF SELECTED 2008 CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATION: PENAL: CHAPTER 16: EXPANDING THE PILOT PROGRAM THAT ASSISTS
INDIGENT INMATES AFTER RELEASE", 40 McGeorge L. Rev. 459, database: lexis.

Lyles-Chockley, Adrienne. (Summer, 2009). Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, "Transitions to
Justice: Prisoner Reentry as an Opportunity to Confront and Counteract Racism", 6 Hastings Race &
Poverty L.J. 259, database: lexis.

Lin, Anna Chih, (2000). Reform in the Making: The Implementation of Social Policy in Prison.

Logan, Charles H. & Gaes, Gerald G. (June, 1993). Justice Quarterly, " META-ANALYSIS AND THE
REHABILITATION OF PUNISHMENT", Vol. 10, No. 2,
http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/cond_envir/oreprlogangaes.pdf

McCarthy, Michael J. (March 22, 2011 ).The Huffington Post, "Break the Chains: America Is Ripe for
Prison Reform", http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-mccarthy/american-prison-
reform_b_838769.html

Mendieta, Eduardo. (2006). Philosophy Today, "Prisons, Torture, Race: on Angela Y. Davis's
Abolitionism", Volume: 50, p. 176.

Mulhausen, David. (July 21, 2010). "The Second Chance Act: More Evaluations of Effectiveness
Needed", Testimony Before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate,
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/second-chance-act-how-effective-are-prisoner-reentry-
programs

Nixon, Vivian; Clough, Patricia Ticento; Staples, David; Peterkin, Yolanda Johnson; Zimmerman,
Patricia; Voight, Christina; & Pica, Sean. (Autumn, 2008). Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global
Perspectives, "Life Capacity Beyond Reentry", Volume 2, Number 1, database: project muse.

Nuñez-Neto, Blas. (July 11, 2008). Congressional Research Report for Congress, "Offender Reentry:
Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism",
http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/crs/offenderreentry.pdf

Overland, Caitlin. (Spring, 2011). Lewis & Clark Law Review, "PERMISSIVE JOINDER UNDER THE
PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT: MORE THAN JUST A PROCEDURAL TOOL", 15 Lewis &
Clark L. Rev. 289, database: lexis.

Pinard, Michael. (June, 2006). Boston University Law Review, "AN INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE ON
THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AND REENTRY ISSUES
FACED BY FORMERLY INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS", 86 B.U.L. Rev. 623, database: lexis.

Pozen, David E. (Summer, 2003). Journal of Law & Politics, "Managing a Correctional Marketplace:
Prison Privatization in the United States and the United Kingdom", 19 J. L. & Politics 253, database:
lexis.

Quinn, Christopher. (Summer, 2009). New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, "The
Right To Refuse Medical Treatment or To Direct the Course of Medical Treatment: Where Should Inmate
Autonomy Begin and End?", 35 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 453, database: lexis.
Prison Reform 12

Raphael, Steven & Stoll, Michael A. (2004). Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, "The Effect of
Prison Releases on Regional Crime Rates", database: lexis.

Ribet, Beth. (Winter, 2010). Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, "NAMING PRISON RAPE AS
DISABLEMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT, THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AND THE IMPERATIVES OF SURVIVOR-ORIENTED
ADVOCACY", 17 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 281, database: lexis.

Rossum, Ralph A. (December, 2003). World and I, " Rehabilitating Rehabilitation : One Reason Why
Prisons Are Failing to Rehabilitate Inmates Is That Rehabilitation Seeks to Improve the Character of
Offenders While Most Prisons Degrade Prisoners", Volume: 18. Issue: 12, database: Questia.

Schoenfeld, Heather. (September/December, 2010). Law and Society Review, "Mass Incarceration and
the Paradox of Prison Conditions Litigation", 44 Law & Soc'y Rev. 731, database: lexis.

Shah, Nirvi (April 8, 2011). Education Week, "Unlikely Allies Call for Shifting Spending from Prisons to
Schools", database: lexis.

Simmons, Ric. (Winter, 2007). Wake Forest Law Review, "PRIVATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE", 42 Wake
Forest L. Rev. 911, database: lexis.

Sloane, Robert D. (Winter, 2007). Stanford Journal of International Law, "The Expressive Capacity of
International Punishment: The Limits of the National Law Analogy and the Potential of International
Criminal Law", 43 Stan. J Int'l L. 39, database: lexis.

Volokh, Alexander (February, 2008). Stanford Law Review, "Privatization and the Law and Economics
of Political Advocacy", 60 Stan. L. Rev. 1197, database: lexis.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, (2008). http://legal-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rehabilitation

Williams, David E.; McGee, Brian R.; & Worth, David S. (2001). Argumentation and Advocacy, "
University Student Perceptions of the Efficacy of Debate Participation: An Empirical Investigation,
Volume: 37. Issue: 4, database: Questia.

Zyl Smit, Dirk van. (2010). Crime and Justice, "Regulation of Prison Conditions", 39 Crime & Just. 503,
database: lexis.