I Negate the resolution.
Observation 1 is Definitions:
United States criminal justice system:
http://www.justice.gov/about/about.html --United States criminal justice system
In 1870, after the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very
expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload, a concerned Congress passed the Act to
Establish the Department of Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870) setting it up as "an executive department of the
government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head. Officially coming into
existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice, pursuant to the 1870
Act, was to handle the legal business of the United States. The Act gave the
Department control over all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which
the United States had an interest. In addition, the Act gave the Attorney
General and the Department control over federal law enforcement. To assist the
Attorney General, the 1870 Act created the Office of the Solicitor General.
Observation 2: The negative’s sole burden in this round is to prove the resolution false, and thus
needs to prove that retribution is favorable over rehabilitation. This does not exclude
Rehabilitation in the neg world, or Retribution in the aff world unless either side desires to sever
it. However, the burden of the aff remains that they must prove REHABILITATION over
RETRIBUTION, so even if the Affirmative can claim the impacts of the Neg or vice versa, they
must prove why to still prefer their side as the primary value of the debate.
Observation 3: If either side provides impacts, the opposing side must disprove uniqueness in
order to use the “use both” argument.
As this resolution talks about the criminal justice system, I will value the role of the system,
Justice.
Objectivity in the criminal justice system must be strived for.
Rawls writesJustice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory
however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and
institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.
Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a
whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right First, of course
objectivity is not 100 percent achievable, but we must strive for it.
In terms of the Criminal Justice System, the most objective thing we can strive for is my
criterion, Individual Responsibility, which by I mean each person should be held accountable
under the Justice Systems.
Individual responsibility is essential to criminal justice and morality because it
preserves accountability of wrongdoing and is objective and fair. Only
retribution can provide this responsibility and justice.
Logan, ’93 (Charles, H., University of Connecticut along with Gerald Gaes from the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, “META-ANALYSIS AND THE REHABILITATION OF PUNISHMENT,” JUSTICE
QUARTERLY, Vol. 10 No. 2, June 1993)-mikee
If some people think that punishment is evil (perhaps a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless); that mercy is
a higher value than justice ; that compassion is more praiseworthy than fairness; that
permissiveness and lenience are the marks of a kind and loving society, while accountability implies callousness; that forgiveness is
divine, while judgment and enforcement are unpleasant human necessities; that the discretionary exercise of power and authority is
trustworthy when the intent is benevolent and paternalistic but suspect when the purpose is disciplinary; or
that teaching,
helping, and treating offenders are laudable and prestigious activities while confining and managing
them is a dirty job (though someone has to do it)— in short, that only a spirit of benevolence can give the criminal sanction any
redeeming value–then
perhaps those people have false values and need to be enlightened. One of
the duties of prison officials is to help offenders understand the wrongfulness of their criminal
conduct and accept responsibility and accountability for that conduct. This duty requires the
imposition of punishment because the very concepts of wrongfulness, responsibility, and
accountability must be socially defined and constructed through the use of sanctions. Thus
punishment is a constructive, not a destructive, enterprise. When done right, it is a positive good
rather than a necessary evil, but to do it right one needs the right people with the right attitudes. Hostility, contempt,
and cruelty are inappropriate sentiments toward prisoners, but so too are pity, indulgence, or excessive sympathy and compassion.
"Professionalism" is the most appropriate word to describe the proper attitude of impersonal
authority, objectivity, and firm but respectful fairness that good officers have toward
prisoners.
I contend that the justice system can uphold this standard of objectivity by placing the focus on
individual responsibility and punishment.
A: A Justice system must follow certain moral codes. If they do not, they allow immoral actions
to go by.
The Justice System must protect against immoral crimes.
Maclagan, ‘39 (W.G, “Punishment and Retribution,” Philosophy, July 1939,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3746102.pdf)
There can be no question that the infliction of pain on the wrong- doer in the first of these senses of
wrongdoing is in principle justified. If it were not, if the State (for instance) had no right to take steps which
to be effective might even amount to the infliction of pain in order to secure conformity with rules other than those
that each individual might accept for himself, then in an imperfect world the State could not exist at all and
would have no reason for existing. And if such infliction of pain is really, as usage leads us to suppose it is, punishment,
then punishment is justified. Yet the justification does not seem to lie here in the performance of any retributive function; it must,
therefore, lie in the fact that
only by such action is it possible to preclude social chaos, injustice, and
maleficence, and thus it looks not to the past but to the future. That it does not lie in the performance of a retributive function
can perhaps be seen if we reflect that retribution has desert on the side of the patient as its correlative. For surely we should not say
that a person who acted morally, that is, conformably to his own standards and because they were his standards, deserved the pain
that the law annexed to his action? We should, I suppose, even feel a certain repugnance to the infliction of the penalty where we
were convinced that the situation was of such a sort-perhaps the treason of Sir Roger Casement would be generally regarded as an
instance of this. We should feel a repugnance that would not be felt if we could honestly say, "This is what he deserves," though
some repugnance might be felt even then. And yet we should not regard this repugnance as a sufficient ground, or as evidence that
there was a sufficient ground, for the non-infliction of the penalty. Considerations of desert, then, would not be what determined us
to inflict or to abstain from inflicting it, or, in other words, the infliction would not be retributive
B: Retribution is effective at ensuring moral codes.
Retribution ensures moral codes are upheld.
Charles, ’01 (J. Daryl, Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Taylor University, “Thoughts on
Revenge and Retribution,” December 2001, http://features.pewforum.org/deathpenalty/reader/20.html)
Despite our doubts and deep-seated cynicism, the
retributive act distinguishes itself from revenge or
vengeance in several important and unmistakable ways. Whereas revenge strikes out at real
or perceived injury, retribution speaks to an objective wrong. Whereas revenge is wild and
"insatiable," not subject to limitations, retribution has both upper and lower limits, acknowledging the
moral repugnance of assigning draconian punishment to petty crime as well as assigning light punishment to
violent, heinous crime. Whereas vengeance has a thirst for injury and delights in bringing evil upon
the offending party—the avenger will not only kill but rape, torture, plunder and burn what is left, deriving satisfaction from
its victim's suffering—retribution has as its goal a greater social good and takes no pleasure in punishment. And
finally, whereas the avenger will operate out of the retaliatory mode due to something done to him or to his group,
retribution is impersonal and therefore demands impartiality, not subject to personal bias (for
this reason Lady Justice is depicted as blindfolded). Retributive justice, when properly understood, serves a civilized culture in
It isolates individuals who endanger the community; it expresses social
outrage at morally perverse acts; it controls the extent to which the citizenry is victimized by
criminal acts; it rewards the perpetrator proportionately with consequences befitting the
crime; and it rehabilitates the offender by forcing him to reflect on the grievous nature of the crime. Each of these elements is
several important ways.
critical in preserving the social order.
Punishment is effective in protecting justice.
Will, ’82 (George F,’’ “The Value of Punishment,” Newsweek, May 24, 1982, Lexis-Nexis)
Retribution: In 1952 Justice Hugo Black wrote: "Retribution is no longer the dominant objective of criminal law. Reformation and
rehabilitation of offenders have become important goals of criminal jurisprudence." Today, after 30 years of rising crime and
recidivism, we at least know what we
do not know--how to reform and rehabilitate. In 1972 Justice Thurgood Marshall
wrote that "punishment for the sake of retribution is not permissible under the Eighth Amendment." That is absurd. The
element of retribution--vengeance, if you will--does not make punishment cruel and unusual, it
makes punishment intelligible. It distinguishes punishment from therapy. Rehabilitation may be an ancillary result of
punishment, but we punish to serve justice, by giving people what they deserve. From plea bargaining through
sentencing through paroling, the criminal justice system is riddled with exercises of discretion that are unjustified by sufficient
knowledge, and unrationalized by coherent theories. This is especially true at the parole stage, where judgments often presuppose-rashly--knowledge of rehabilitation and individual predictability. In penology, as in other fields of social reform, the millennium has
been indefinitely postponed. For
now, we should do what we know how to do, for reasons we can explicate. We
should use the criminal justice system to isolate and punish--that is, to protect society from
physical danger--and to strengthen society by administering condign punishments that
express and nourish, through controlled indignation, the vigor of our values. We should be ashamed
and alarmed to live in a society that does not intelligently express through its institutions the public's proper sense of proportionate
punishment for the likes of Smith, Powell and Sirhan. We
are in danger of becoming demoralized--literally,
de-moralized.
C: Rehabilitation does not solve for this problem.
Rehabilitation undermines punishment
Charles H. Logan, University of Connecticut, and Gerald Gaes, Federal Bureau of Prisons, June
1993
“Meta-Analysis and the Rehabilitation of Punishment,” Justice Quarterly Volume 10, No. 2
thttp://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/cond_envir/oreprlogangaes.p
df
As punishment, imprisonment conveys an important cultural message, but if the official mission of a prison is
defined simultaneously as both punishment and rehabilitation conflicting and confusing
messages are transmitted both inside and outside the prison walls. Inside the walls, such a
definition conveys a message of rights without responsibility. When a prison system is
mandated in its mission statement to attempt rehabilitation, or even merely to provide opportunities and
resources for self-improvement, that mandate creates for inmates a legitimate claim (a right) to
personally beneficial services. At the same time, it undermines inmates' accountability by defining
them, like children, as insufficiently developed and disadvantaged persons for whose future
behavior society must take some responsibility. Whereas imprisonment as punishment defines inmates as
responsible for their past behavior, and whereas discipline within prison defines inmates as accountable for their current behavior,
rehabilitation as a goal of the system defines inmates as not fully responsible for their future
behavior.
2. Their attempt to include rehab within retribution erases personal responsibility,
encourages future crimes, and artificially establishes government welfare.
Logan, ’93 (Charles, H., University of Connecticut along with Gerald Gaes from the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, “META-ANALYSIS AND THE REHABILITATION OF
PUNISHMENT,” JUSTICE QUARTERLY, Vol. 10 No. 2, June 1993)-mikee
if the official mission of a prison is
defined simultaneously as both punishment and rehabilitation conflicting and confusing
messages are transmitted both inside and outside the prison walls.Inside the walls, such a definition
conveys a message of rights without responsibility. When a prison system is mandated in its mission
As punishment, imprisonment conveys an important cultural message, but
statement to attempt rehabilitation, or even merely to provide opportunities and resources for self-improvement, that
mandate creates for inmates a legitimate claim (a right) to personally beneficial services. At
the same time, it
undermines inmates' accountability by defining them, like children, as insufficiently
developed and disadvantaged persons for whose future behavior society must take
some responsibility. Whereas imprisonment as punishment defines inmates as responsible for their past behavior,
rehabilitation as a
goal of the system defines inmates as not fully responsible for their future
behavior. Outside the walls, linking imprisonment with rehabilitation conveys a confusing
message to the general public. As punishment, the message of imprisonment is "Felonies are very wrong acts,
and those who commit them will be held to account." But the message of the rehabilitation ethic is
"Felonies are the result of personal deficiencies (of knowledge, skills, habits, values, temperament,
motivation, personality, and so on) on the part of the individual; society must attempt to correct
those personal deficiencies." That is not an appropriate message for society to construct through its institutions
and whereas discipline within prison defines inmates as accountable for their current behavior,
of punishment. Such a message depicts criminal behavior in deterministic terms and portrays offenders as objects in need
It may
not actually excuse their crimes, but it conflicts with and weakens the punishment
message.
of adjustment, rather than as responsible human beings who must accept the consequences of their actions.
Cat Emp. Q’s
What is EVIL?
What is your END?
Do you advocate for the elimination of the Retributive System?