Definition’s

But before we get into what it means for me to negate we must define a few key
words in the resolution
First is Primary this means the most important principle
Oxford dictionary ND (LINK: https://www.bing.com/search?
q=primary+definition&qs=LS&pq=primary+def&sc=6-
11&cvid=A35175316192410793534C5A075D8CCD&FORM=QBRE&sp=1&ghc=1&lq=0) // QML

primary (adjective) · Primary (adjective) of chief importance; principal:

This means the aff must prove rehabilitation is the best possible method for the prison
system if they cannot you can vote negative

Only a moral obligation can exist if its feasibly possible means if it is

bound to fall auto vote neg
Britanica ND (Link: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ought-implies-can) // QML
Ought implies can, in ethics, the principle according to which an agent has a moral obligation to
perform a certain action only if it is possible for him or her to perform it. In other words, if a certain action is
impossible for an agent to perform, the agent cannot, according to the principle, have a moral obligation to do so. Attributed to the
German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, the principle of ought implies can has been regarded as a minimal condition on the plausibility of
any ethical theory: viz, no such theory is justifiable if it implies that agents have duties to perform actions that they are unable to perform.

This means that if you don’t think that it is probable and good for rehabilitation to be
the primary objective you can vote negative

With that out of the way, let’s look at the metric for how you should evaluate today’s
round
 V/VC
The value is governmental obligation---vote for the side that better upholds the role of
the government---prefer my value:
1---Resolutional Intent---the topic asks if we ought to change the structure of
government---means the role of the government is the primary concern
2---Governmental Constraint---governmental rule is key to check the excesses of any
other value---because if the government Justice viliglatism
The value criterion, or how to uphold governmental obligation, is law and order ill
defend it as Cambridge dictionary defines it (link:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/law-and-order#:~:text=a
%20situation%20in%20which%20laws,issue%20of%20law%20and%20order.)
a situation in which laws are obeyed, and people behave in an organized and peaceful
way: Taxing consumption of alcohol is an issue of law and order.
This is the only way to make sure the government can uphold their obligations
because if laws aren’t being followed the government will lose the respect to be able
to enforce laws and society will devolve into anarchy.
PRE REQ to social justice
 Alternate methods
The main goal of the justice system ought to be retribution deters crime and is the most
moral
Longley 2022 Robert Longley is a U.S. government and history expert with over 30 years of
experience in municipal government and urban planning. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-
retributive-justice-5323923 June 29 2022//AF

Retributive justice is based on the theory that when people commit crimes, “justice” requires that they
be punished in return and that the severity of their punishment should be proportionate to the
seriousness of their crime. While the concept has been used in a variety of ways, retributive justice is best understood as that form of
justice committed to the following three principles: Those who commit crimes–especially serious crimes—morally
deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment. The punishment should be determined and applied by
officials of a legitimate criminal justice system. It is morally impermissible to intentionally punish the
innocent or to inflict disproportionately harsh punishments on wrongdoers. Separating it from sheer revenge,
retributive justice should not be personal. Instead, it is directed only at the wrongdoing involved, has
inherent limits, seeks no pleasure from the suffering of wrongdoers, and employs clearly defined
procedural standards. According to the principles and practices of procedural and substantive law, the government through prosecution
before a judge must establish the guilt of a person for violation of the law. Following the determination of guilt, a judge imposes the
appropriate sentence, which can include a fine, imprisonment, and in extreme cases, the death penalty. Retributive justice is to be applied
swiftly and must cost the criminal something, which does not include the collateral consequences of the crime, such as the pain and suffering of
the offender’s family. Punishment of offenders also serves to restore balance to society by satisfying the public’s desire for vengeance.
Offenders are considered to have misused society’s benefits and have thus gained an unethical
advantage over their law-abiding counterparts. Retributive punishment removes that advantage and
tries to restore balance to society by validating how individuals ought to act in society. Punishing
criminals for their crimes also reminds others in society that such conduct is not appropriate for law-
abiding citizens, thus helping to deter further wrongdoing. Historic Context The idea of retribution appears in the ancient
codes of laws from the ancient Near East, including the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi from around 1750 BCE. In this and other ancient legal
systems, collectively referred to as cuneiform law, crimes were considered to have violated other people’s rights.
Victims were to be
compensated for the intentional and unintentional harms they suffered, and offenders were to be
punished because they had done wrong. As a philosophy of justice, retribution recurs in many religions .
There are mentions of it in several religious texts, including the Bible. Adam and Eve, for example, were cast out of the Garden of Eden because
they violated God’s rules and thus deserved to be punished. In Exodus 21:24 direct retribution is expressed as “an eye for an eye, “an eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Plucking out the eye of a person of equal social standing meant that one’s own eye would be put out. Some penalties
designed to punish culpable behavior by individuals were specifically tied to outlawed acts. Thieves, for example, had their hands amputated. In
the 18th century, German philosopher and Enlightenment-era thinker Immanuel
Kant developed a theory of retribution
based on logic and reason. In Kant’s view, the only purpose punishment should serve is to penalize the
criminal for committing a crime. To Kant, the punishment’s effect on the criminal’s likelihood of being
rehabilitated is irrelevant. The punishment is there to punish the criminal for the crime they have
committed—nothing more, nothing less. Kant’s theories created, coupled with the very nature of
retributive justice fueled the arguments of Kant’s modern critics who argue that his approach would
lead to harsh and ineffective sentencing. Kant’s views led to the theory of “just deserts,” or the now
more prominent views on the subject of the punishment of criminals that offenders must deserve to be
punished. Ask people on the street why criminals should be punished, and most of them are likely to say
“because they ‘deserve’ it.” Kant goes on to suggest that adhering to the law is a sacrifice of one’s right
to freedom of choice. Therefore, those that commit crimes gain an unfair advantage over those that do
not. Punishment, therefore, is necessary as a means to rectify the balance between the law-abiding
citizens and the criminals, removing any unfairly gained advantage from the criminals. Many legal scholars
argue that widespread adoption of Kant’s theories has resulted in a trend of modern criminal justice systems to criminalize too much conduct,
such as the simple possession of small amounts of marijuana, and to punish those conducts too severely—or to “over-prosecute” and “over-
sentence.” As philosopher Douglas Husak argues, “[t]he two most distinctive characteristics of . . . criminal justice in the United States . . . are
the dramatic expansion in the substantive criminal law and the extraordinary rise in the use of punishment. . . . In short, the most pressing
problem with the criminal law today is that we have too much of it.”
 Mass improsment
A meta – analyses of over 6000 studies shows that Rehabilitation doesn’t
reduce recidivism
Perry 9/8/21 (Amanda works for the Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York,
UK LINK: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8376657/) // QML
Of 6345 articles retrieved, 29 RCTs (9443 participants, 1104 [11·7%] females, 8111 [85·9%]
males, and 228 [2·4%] unknown) met the inclusion criteria for the primary outcome. Mean ages were
31·4 years (SD 4·9, range 24·5–41·5) for adult participants and 17·5 years (SD 1·9; range 14·6–20·2) for adolescent participants.
Race or ethnicity data were not sufficiently reported to be aggregated.
If including all 29 RCTs, psychological
interventions were associated with reduced reoffending outcomes (OR 0·72, 95% CI 0·56–
0·92). However, after excluding smaller studies (<50 participants in the intervention
group), there was no significant reduction in recidivism (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0·68–1·11). Based on
two studies, therapeutic communities were associated with decreased rates of recidivism (OR
0·64, 95% CI 0·46–0·91). These risk estimates did not significantly differ by type of control
group and other study characteristics.

California implemented rehab in 2014 and it failed

BYRHONDA LYONS 23 Byrhonda Lyons is a national award-winning investigative reporter for
CalMatters. She writes and produces compelling stories about California’s court and criminal system.
Her reporting has uncovered how California bounces around mentally ill prisoners, the lack of diversity
among local judges, and how state police ignored a Ninth Circuit opinion and continued an asset
forfeiture procedure towing people’s vehicle for 30-day
tows.https://calmatters.org/justice/2023/07/california-prisoner-rehabilitation-centers/ JULY 10, 2023
As Gov. Gavin Newsom retools the state’s prison system to emphasize rehabilitation, his administration
has little evidence that a privately run program for parolees costing taxpayers $100 million a year works
to prevent future crime.
The state does not collect data on whether parolees who participate in the program have found jobs or
whether they are returned to prison for another crime. What state data does show is that only 40% of
participants completed at least one of the services they were offered.
The information gap frustrates critics of the governor’s policies as well as supporters who want evidence
that the state’s investments are working.
“At the end of the day, we’ve come from 160,000 people incarcerated down to 95 (thousand). So we’ve
had some success,” said Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, a Los Angeles Democrat, referring to
the decline in the state’s prison population since 2011.
“But I also want to ensure the public that they’ve been safe with all these people not recidivating… And
the only way we can do that is to come up with data,” he said.
CalMatters’ yearlong investigation of the parolee reentry program draws on court records, state reports
and data, contracts, tax forms, policy experts, interviews with vendors and communication with several
current and former program participants — some of whom are back in prison.
CalMatters found:
Corrections department data is outdated, inaccurate or doesn’t exist. When the department provided
CalMatters with a roster of more than 400 locations providing rehabilitation services, we visited 23 of
them, finding some with inaccurate addresses, one with a padlocked gate in front of a seemingly closed
site, another that appeared to be abandoned, and three where employees said they were no longer
providing rehabilitation services.
Department officials struggled to explain how many people enrolled in the program in 2020-2021. The
department published an annual report noting 17,650 participants. Dana Simas, a department
spokesperson at the time, told CalMatters the program served 9,516 people. The department later
revised that number to 8,213.
State data show only two out of five parolees who participated in the rehabilitation program in 2020-
2021 completed at least one service offered to them. Based on how the state collects data, it’s unclear if
anyone finished all of the services offered to them. A spokesperson said the corrections agency “is
unable to provide further completion information.”
State officials rarely review the operations of the four companies that operate the program, state
accountability reviews show. Records show state officials only documented reviews of three of the more
than 400 state-funded reentry homes and treatment facilities from 2018 to December 2022.
Some of the nonprofit vendors that manage reentry homes lease their facilities from their own
executives, according to public records, raising “red flags” among experts who say the arrangements
could signal financial conflicts of interest.
The state’s July 2022 list of reentry homes included several with suspended business licenses and
nonprofit status revoked years ago by the California Department of Justice — effectively barring them
from doing business in California.
Become a CalMatters member today to stay informed, bolster our nonpartisan news and expand
knowledge across California.
The rehabilitation program for parolees formally launched in 2014 under the name Specialized
Treatment for Optimized Programming, often referred to as STOP. It is a voluntary program that serves
less than a quarter of the roughly 35,000 inmates released from prison each year. Many of the parolees
live at the homes; others visit outpatient centers.
The STOP program for parolees, which has cost the state about $600 million in the past decade, is run by
four large contractors. Those companies also contract with nearly 200 nonprofits, private companies or
community organizations to provide housing and rehabilitation services for parolees in roughly 450
homes and treatment centers.

After California implemented rehab their violent crime rate went up 26%
Magnus Lofstrom and Brandon Martin 23 Brandon Martin is a research associate at the Public Policy
Institute of California. His research focuses on crime, policing, prison and jail populations, and the
impacts of criminal justice reforms. Recent work includes examining generational shifts in criminal
offending and exploring racial disparities in law enforcement stops. Magnus Lofstrom is policy director
of criminal justice and a senior fellow at PPIC. His research focuses on crime, policing, racial disparity,
recidivism, and impacts of criminal justice reforms. His areas of expertise also span immigration,
education, and entrepreneurship. His research has been published in numerous academic books and
journals, including Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Criminology & Public
Policy, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Journal of Human Resources, and Review of Economics and
Statistics. https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ October 2023
Like the nation, California has seen increases in violent crime in the years since the pandemic hit. The
state’s violent crime rate is up by 13.5% compared to the pre-COVID rate of 2019 of 436 violent crimes
per 100,000 residents. The state’s violent crime rate has fluctuated over the decades. Between 1960 and
1980, rates spiked from 236 to 888 violent crimes per 100,000 residents; rates dipped in the early 1980s
but climbed again into the early 1990s. After reaching a 1992 peak of 1,115 per 100,000
residents, California’s violent crime rate steadily fell, reaching a 50-year low of 391 in 2014. Since then,
the violent crime rate has been trending up, increasing in six out of the past eight years; it is now 26.4%
higher than in 2014.

When we focus on rehab it fails due to understaffing which actually escalates violence
in these systems means they don’t have access to mental health help.
Amy Knapp 11/11/23 (Amy Knapp joined The Independent staff in 2007. Her primary focus is western
Stark County school districts including Massillon City, Perry Local and Tuslaw Local schools. A graduate
of Indiana University of Pennsylvania's journalism program, Amy has worked as a newspaper reporter
for more than 20 years. LINK: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/11/11/ohios-youth-prison-
detention-centers-struggle-with-injuries-neglect/70410221007/) // QML

The juvenile system’s mission is to protect the public and keep teens out of the adult system. The state takes
on the role of parent to kids in custody. That’s why juvenile prisons employ teachers, counselors, mental health
professionals and others who specialize in the care and treatment of at-risk children . “The goal is to help youth
become productive members of their communities,” said Amy Ast, director of the Department of Youth Services, in a written statement. “Every
service we provide is with this in mind.” Yet that’s not happening today for hundreds of kids in the system. Staff
shortages, including
at least 140 open positions for guards and other jobs, have limited the state’s ability to provide effective
education, counseling and supervision. The employee turnover rate in Ohio's juvenile prisons jumped
77% from 2021 to 2022, leaving 1 in 6 jobs vacant. That includes 1 in almost 5 teacher jobs and almost
half the behavioral health jobs. At the same time, violence is escalating. The number of violent acts in
the state’s juvenile prisons jumped 58% between 2020 and 2022, making them more dangerous places
not only for kids but also for employees.

Federal studies show that Criminal Rehabilitation doesn’t reduce recidivism studies
that say otherwise is just cherry picked studies
Leonard Adam Sipes, Jr. 18 Retired federal senior spokesperson. Thirty-five years of award-winning
public relations for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed multiple times by every
national news outlet. Former Senior Specialist for Crime Prevention for the Department of Justice’s
clearinghouse. Former Director of Information Services, National Crime Prevention Council. Former
Adjunct Associate Professor of criminology and public affairs-University of Maryland, University College.
Former advisor to presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. Certificate of Advanced Study-Johns
Hopkins University.https://www.crimeinamerica.net/offender-rehabilitation-programs-stink-new-
federal-report/ 06/06/2018
There is a new federal report suggesting that we can reduce recidivism by approximately 20 percent with a focus on mental health and
substance abuse programs. The report is summarized below. This
site offered an array of articles suggesting
that rehabilitation programs for offenders either don’t work or have a very limited impact. For most,
reductions in recidivism are less than ten percent, Crime in America. Three evaluations from the National
Institute of Justice and the US Sentencing Commission flatly state that program results do not reduce
recidivism or offer slight reductions, National Institute of Justice. Additional evaluations suggest
that treatment programs produce marginal results at best (link above). Recidivism by released inmates is
astounding; five out of six state prisoners were arrested at least once during the nine years after their
release. There was an average of five arrests per offender for a total of two million crimes, Crime in
America. Program failure is a national tragedy that doesn’t serve anyone’s best interest. We have called for a vigorous research effort and a
national conference to address the issue. It should be on par with cancer research considering the number of Americans victimized by crime.
Advocates President Trump and endless others continue to advocate for programs; many
simply don’t care if they work or
not. Some want programs for offenders as a compassionate response to perceived inequities among the
offender population. Failure is not compassion. Failure is the opposite of compassion. Advocates
cherrypick programs with better results, greatly exaggerate the findings, and offer them as a shield to prove that
they are compassionate, evidence-based people. A ninety percent failure rate (if there are reductions) would be
deemed a national tragedy in any other field. I will get an endless number of comments in social media
forums citing obscure, methodologically challenged studies to prove that programs
work. Successful offenders understand that most programs are inadequate and only self-motivation
guarantees success. They see programs as a half-hearted and somewhat cynical response to the issues they possess.

AT Human right
a. Even under this rehabilitative system human rights violations still occur
The Center for Constitutional Rights 22 The Center for Constitutional Rights works with
communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic
communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of
power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach.
Learn more at ccrjustice.org. https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/court-finds-
continued-systemic-constitutional-violations-california (Court Finds Continued Systemic Constitutional
Violations in California Prisons ) February 3, 2022

February 3, 2022, Oakland, CA ‒ A federal judge ruled yesterday that the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is continuing to systematically violate the due process rights of
imprisoned men despite a settlement agreement where the agency agreed to sweeping changes to its
use of solitary confinement. Judge Claudia Wilken found that CDCR is relying on inaccurate and even
fabricated confidential information to place individuals in solitary confinement, using dubious gang
affiliations to deny them a fair opportunity for parole, and holding them in a restricted unit in the
general population without adequate procedural safeguards. Citing these rights violations, Judge Wilken
extended for a second additional one-year term a historic 2015 settlement agreement to end indefinite
solitary confinement in California prisons. “The more we dig, the more clear it becomes that CDCR
prison officials routinely lie about information from so-called ‘confidential sources’ and use that
facrbicated, secret evidence to send people to the torture of solitary confinement,” said Rachel
Meeropol, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights representing the men who
brought the suit. “It cannot continue.” The 2015 settlement agreement resulted from Ashker v.
Governor of California, a case originally filed by Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell, who were in longterm
indefinite solitary confinement in Pelican Bay State Prison, and who represented themselves. The class
action lawsuit charges that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition
on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the absence of meaningful review for placement violates the
prisoners’ rights to due process afforded by the 14th Amendment. Under the agreement, the CDCR
released nearly 1600 prisoners from solitary confinement – Security Housing Units (SHU) – and stopped
sending prisoners to the SHU solely on the basis of gang affiliation. The agreement also mandated a two-
year monitoring period intended to abolish indefinite solitary confinement and allowed plaintiffs to
obtain a one-year extension if they could demonstrate systemic ongoing violations
 AT terror
1. Alt causes
a. Palestine college stuff
b. US political action abroad
c. Guards don’t change meaning
2. Recidivism turns because if more people go to prison they are more likely to be
radicalized
3. Impact doesn’t fit the value
4. Prison terrorist never get WMDs like cant buy a handguns how they get a
WMD.
5. Clifford card says terroists attacks happened why no mass death
6. AT ahmed we lie

7. Rehabilitation is impossible in the US theres two warrants a. Is policticaly

guards have no reason to do it as their job is based on keeping the prisoner
locked up not rehabbed so they have no incentive b. is economically we are just
too big of a country to be able to possibly afford rehab education and job
training for everyone who would need it
8. The guards are the same in prisons which means they will still continue to treat
prisoners poorly because they hold grudges which means rehabilitation in prisons can
never work

9. This minimizes the experiences of victims of violent crimes because rehabilitation

gives the offender the equivalent of a slap on the wrist or even worse helps them.

10. Rehabilitation doesn’t have deadlines its based off when they are deemed ok. This
means that offenders can be released before actually rehabilitated and commit a
crime, or be kept in the system inevitably creating the ultimate life without parole.