Jump to content
Cannibal_Ox

Prisons Case

Recommended Posts

I was wondering what people thought about a US prisons case that did something along the lines of either reforming prisons or disbanding prisons and vastly increase spending on rehabilitation programs that will help bring people back into society, rather than further creating criminals and mentally ill... i wanted to know people's ideas, what plan text could be, and anything else that could be done with a prisons case. Please, share your ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this is a cool idea, but my only contention is that rehabilitation may not be a true answer to this problem. One could argue (with plenty of debate-accepted, kritikal authors) that rehabilitation only teaches people to be "normal" i.e. lose their individuality and go mindlessly work in a factory or something to support the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Prisoners are being detained with charges, and their things are only searched if guards have probable cause.

 

Please, tell me how that is even remotely T?

 

Disbanding prisons? Come ON.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me like it could arguably be topical, but would be REALLY xtra T. I think it's a cool idea though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I realize that this case would be very extra topical, but i wanted to know people's ideas about it not pertaining so much to topicality. It seems as though there are only like 3 cases on this site that are topical, but I don't care as much about the T arguments (they are easy to make and anyone who really takes T seriously is probably a novice anyways). I just want to know some of the other thoughts that people have relating more to kritiks, disads, c/p's, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first off this is so untopical its not even funny.

 

second, assuming you could win the T debate, what advantages would you claim and how would you find adequete solvency. the failure rate for these rehabilitation programs is extremely high and the prisoners just end up back in prison becuase that is what they are used to. Also how does just throwing money at the problem fix anything. We throw billions of dollars at Iraq and its still not finished (though it has arguably improved), we throw money at various other programs in the US and they don't get any better, and can somone say good old fashioned spending d/a. I'm not a fan of this disad but in this case i think that it would be a solid argument *blows the dust of his old spending d/a*.

Now on to the even more attrocious idea of disbanding prisons- are you crazy!! do you know how many problems this would bring!!! you would get no advantages except maybe a biopower one and even that would be shaky. It would be easily outwieghed by any counter plan possibly a c/p to just reform the prisons, same advantages but avoids the disads.

 

I haven't read any lit on this because, well, its a horrible idea. It would lose on T every time. i suppose if one tried hard enough you could find lit for this though, i just don't recommend wasting your time trying to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best prisons affirmative (which several camps are producing) would reverse the Bell v. Wolfish decision- applying a 'reasonable suspicion' standard for prison body cavity searches. Although it doesn't access the 'ban prisons' literature, it is a fairly strong probable cause affirmative.

 

Clint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first off this is so untopical its not even funny.

 

second, assuming you could win the T debate, what advantages would you claim and how would you find adequete solvency. the failure rate for these rehabilitation programs is extremely high and the prisoners just end up back in prison becuase that is what they are used to. Also how does just throwing money at the problem fix anything. We throw billions of dollars at Iraq and its still not finished (though it has arguably improved), we throw money at various other programs in the US and they don't get any better, and can somone say good old fashioned spending d/a. I'm not a fan of this disad but in this case i think that it would be a solid argument *blows the dust of his old spending d/a*.

Now on to the even more attrocious idea of disbanding prisons- are you crazy!! do you know how many problems this would bring!!! you would get no advantages except maybe a biopower one and even that would be shaky. It would be easily outwieghed by any counter plan possibly a c/p to just reform the prisons, same advantages but avoids the disads.

 

I haven't read any lit on this because, well, its a horrible idea. It would lose on T every time. i suppose if one tried hard enough you could find lit for this though, i just don't recommend wasting your time trying to.

 

qfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best prisons affirmative (which several camps are producing) would reverse the Bell v. Wolfish decision- applying a 'reasonable suspicion' standard for prison body cavity searches. Although it doesn't access the 'ban prisons' literature, it is a fairly strong probable cause affirmative.

 

Clint

care to tell us how this works and what the Bell v. Wolfish decision is??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you run this type of case, you should just assume that your opponents will run the biopower K against you. The mass of literature on prison reform spearheaded by Foucault's work is almost limitless.

 

I might also add any advantage you'd claim from funding non-prison programs would lack uniqueness because many programs like halfway houses, rehab clinics and community service were created in the spirit of rehabilitation rather than deterrence. Realistically, a portion of your advantages would be "prisons bad" while the rest of your advantages would be "social welfare good, but these programs lack funding." While perhaps philosophically admirable, that's pretty unstrategic because you'll be forced to defend more ground than you want to. Teams could prep your case by writing disads to any number of social programs that would receive funding from your case. Not to mention, there are pretty serious safety concerns with releasing violent prisoners.

 

One last note for T debates: I think it's pretty fair to divide ground on the premise that the aff has to defend the notion of criminal law and detention while the negative does not have to do so. Eliminating prisons or criminal law would end searches with or without probable cause, and detentions with or without charge. This isn't to say that affirmatives can't claim certain critical advantages, but the scope of affirmative action should be unidirectional. You should be allowed to ban searches without probable cause, but not eliminate the police force, or ban searches period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you run this type of case, you should just assume that your opponents will run the biopower K against you. The mass of literature on prison reform spearheaded by Foucault's work is almost limitless.

 

I might also add any advantage you'd claim from funding non-prison programs would lack uniqueness because many programs like halfway houses, rehab clinics and community service were created in the spirit of rehabilitation rather than deterrence. Realistically, a portion of your advantages would be "prisons bad" while the rest of your advantages would be "social welfare good, but these programs lack funding." While perhaps philosophically admirable, that's pretty unstrategic because you'll be forced to defend more ground than you want to. Teams could prep your case by writing disads to any number of social programs that would receive funding from your case. Not to mention, there are pretty serious safety concerns with releasing violent prisoners.

 

One last note for T debates: I think it's pretty fair to divide ground on the premise that the aff has to defend the notion of criminal law and detention while the negative does not have to do so. Eliminating prisons or criminal law would end searches with or without probable cause, and detentions with or without charge. This isn't to say that affirmatives can't claim certain critical advantages, but the scope of affirmative action should be unidirectional. You should be allowed to ban searches without probable cause, but not eliminate the police force, or ban searches period.

 

Thanks for the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell v. Wolfish was a 1979 Supreme Court case that said full body cavity searches were legal for pretrial detainees. I'm actually working on this aff, and could really use some solvency evidence for reversing the supreme court decision... anyone wanna help me out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There'a a law review from '87 that's the best solvency advocate- the name might be mcgrath.

 

clint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most topical version (and best, imho) is to have the courts overturn the bell v. wolfish decision which allows for searches without probable cause in prisons (specifically of body cavities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, thats what I was working on... I saw the McGrath (cant remember if that name is right though) evidence... helped alot, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what type of advantages are claimed on bell v. wolfish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but I don't care as much about the T arguments (they are easy to make and anyone who really takes T seriously is probably a novice anyways).

seriously, what the hell. Why do only novices take T seriously? when it become an irrelevant issue that only novices would attempt to take it seriously. T is an extremely legitamate argument, especially when run agianst blatantly non topical cases, like the one you mentioned at the start of the thread. furthermore considering T is a huge issue on this case why would not be worried about it? sure simple T shells may be easy to make, but a good one to defend an absurd idea agianst somone who is going to hammer the hell out of you on T are not easy to make; they take time and careful consideration to construct. Don't assume T is such a nonissue that only novices take seriously, especially when the hole is so tremendously huge in the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...