Thanks to my opponent for their important response. I look forward to addressing their questions and counterarguments.
BoP
First, I want to clarify further the meaning of a shared burden of proof. Con writes: “He [sic] must prove beyond a shadow of doubt that America, if potentially replaced by Europe's system, will still fail to commit its goals”, which can be misleading. In truth, (1) I am not obligated to prove anything “beyond a shadow of a doubt” and (2) Con also has to prove that prisons are good. Remember, we are both obligated to provide evidence for our cases.
Framework
Con does not contest my proposed weighing mechanism of “ethics.” Judges, please therefore evaluate this debate in terms of the moral obligations and ethical outcomes of each case.
The spirit of the debate
I am grateful to my opponent for allowing me to take what I recognize is a very unpopular position. To most people, I’m sure it does seem “insane” to want to abolish prison. However, sometimes these seemingly “insane” debate positions can actually be the most educational. Judges, I ask that you therefore please consider the position of prison abolition with an open mind, in the spirit of debate, despite the unpopularity of this position.
On prison reform vs. abolition
Purpose of the prison, continued
As I discussed in the last round, the purpose of prison is neither to stop crime nor to reform criminals, but rather to exercise power—including both disciplinary power (Foucault) and racial power (Alexander). It is a system designed to punish the souls of those who exist outside of the protection of the powerful for their violations of norms of society—not to make them better, but to make the violence against them disappear.
Extend my analysis that the very purpose of prison is to dominate and oppress. The prison system can be and has been reformed over and over again, and yet has continued to enact worse and worse violence. That is why reform does not work to reduce violence—prisons are themselves designed to be violence.
A history of reform
“It is ironic,” Professor Davis writes, “that prison itself was a product of concerted efforts by reformers to create a better system of punishment.” As I have already pointed out, the penitentiary came from ideas on Christian seclusion and Bentham’s panopticon. Later reformers argued against old prisons because of their lax procedures (52). Out of these critiques came more control, fewer freedoms, more frequent searches, and more dehumanizing practices against prisoners. Later, in an effort to create “greater security” in prisons, reformists developed supermax prisons, or “the perfect complement for the horrifying personalities deemed the worst of the worst by the prison system.” Moreover, reforms aimed at reducing the cost of prisons established the
privatization of prisons, where the rights of imprisoned people are even more restricted.
In other words, prison reforms have historically not only failed to address the violence of the prison system, but have in fact participated in and amplified this violence.
Don’t get me wrong—compassionate prison reform is better than no prison reform. However, prison reform fails to get at the root of the violence of the prison system. We need something radically different.
Rebutting con’s counter-plan
Dropping their earlier argument for the First Step Act, Con argues in this round for prison reform by introducing prison programming. These programs include mental health support, substance abuse treatment, holistic faith-based programs, and educational and vocational classes.
I actually agree with Con that these kinds of programs can be helpful. However, they can actually be done a lot better outside of prison.
Most of these reform programs are aimed at merely reducing the harms that prisons cause. Con’s
own article argues that the effects of imprisonment are terrible for those who are released, with 80% of those released eventually returning to prison, 74% of those released being unable to find jobs, and 48,000 legal barriers to actually finding jobs.
Instead of using these programs to reduce the harm of prisons, the US should fund these vocational, mental health, educational, and substance abuse programs without prison. In fact, without prisons, the US would be able to fund these programs using billions of dollars more.
Thus, all of Pro’s proposed benefits for prison reform due to programming actually go to Con’s plan of abolishing prison, including the reduction of recidivism, the saving of money, and the reduction of violent incidents.
Also:
Con argues for a “European style” of reform, but doesn’t specify what that system is.
Con argues for criminal justice reform, which I will address below.
Con argues for a 90% reduction in incarceration, without explaining what kind of legislation would do that—is Con legalizing something, decriminalizing something, randomly releasing prisoners, or what?
The harms of (reformed) prison
Fundamentally, prisons are characterized by isolation, the restriction of liberties, movements, and rights, and the constant fear of punishment from armed guards. Even if one reforms prison, one does not by definition address its fundamental qualities of oppression.
Prison as slavery
As I point out in my first round, many scholars argue that prison is actually slavery. In the
Angola prison in Louisiana, for example, inmates labor in fields without pay, and under threat of extreme punishment (such as solitary confinement). Even if they weren’t working in fields, prisoners are always at risk of abuse from guards, have no freedoms, have no access to their personal properties, and are at the mercy of the system. The Metropolitan Detention Center forced prisoners to endure freezing temperatures, denied prisoners medical care, and denied prisoners legal counsel. In
Alabama prisons, prisoners were tied up and tortured, their faces flattened, prisoners doused in bleach, and beaten.
So, the question remains. Should this literal slavery be reformed? Reduced? Or abolished? Con argues that 90% of prison should be reduced, but I contend that 10% of a bad thing is still bad.
Prison as caste
Extend my analysis that imprisonment is a system whereby racial caste is created and perpetuated. I argue, uncontested, that the prison system creates and perpetuates a caste system of racism.
Prison’s hidden violence
The fact is, prison violence is rendered invisible. Every year, there are
24,661 allegations of sexual victimization in correctional facilities—and this is only what is
reported. These allegations are rarely taken seriously by employees, and in fact are underreported. That’s not to mention the acts of everyday sexual violence against prisoners by the system—such as dehumanizing strip searches, anal probes, and humiliation and harassment by guards, or the extreme torture of
solitary confinement, which can last for years and irreparably harms the psyche of prisons, especially the mentally ill.
But the fact remains, prisons—being denied rights—have few resources to abuse that happens to them in prisons. They are isolated from communities, stigmatized, dismissed, and distrusted. Systemic violence can therefore happen against them frequently and unnoticed, until prisons take drastic steps, such as during the
2018 prison strike. There is incalculable violence being done to prisoners, and they are all silenced.
Prison’s psychological effects
- Delusions
- Paranoia
- Claustrophobia
- Depression
- Panic and stress
- Denial
- Nightmares, night terrors, insomnia
- Substance abuse
- Increased levels of hostility
- Self destructive behavior
“Other effects include:
- Dissociation and emotional withdrawal
- Social withdrawal
- Diminished self esteem
“It's also not uncommon for those who have gone to prison to develop PTSD from the trauma they faced behind bars or the stress of being arrested.”
Con makes no mention as to how his reforms will fix these problems.
Prison’s economic effects
Another problem with reformed prisons is that they are more expensive than the already extremely expensive prison system, costing
millions of dollars. Using this money for other programs saves tens of billions of dollars.
Rebuttals
Violent crime prevention
Con says that without prisons there will be “chaos” and “anarchy,” but does not support this with any evidence. Con should remember that modern prisons are a relatively recent invention.
But, that begs the question, what should be done about violence? As I have shown last round, prisons not only fail to reduce violent crime, but in fact only increase violence. That’s not even to mention the fact that prisons, being a psychologically damaging, racist form of slavery, are themselves violent.
Wealth inequality increases violent crime. Additionally, prisons, by impoverishing, stigmatizing, and psychologically harming prisoners, increase wealth inequality. If we want to stop violence, let’s end this expensive violent institution and use the funds to address the actual roots of violence.
On misc. criminal justice reforms
Con comes up with a number of programs aimed at improving the criminal justice system. What Con doesn’t do is show that any of them work. People have been working on trying to fix the justice system for a long time, and it isn’t easy. Moreover, even if Con does show that there are things that can be done to help the justice system, that doesn’t show that prisons are good—we can fix the justice system AND abolish prisons.
Here is a
list of alternatives to prison time.
On Con’s Q1 and Q4
I’m not sure why I am obligated to address Con’s questions, but here we go.
Q1: I have shown how my plan reduces crime.
Q2: Other countries are irrelevant to the debate, but I think it’d be great if they questioned their incarceral systems too.
welcome to the site! :) you seem to be a decent debater in terms of resourcing and research. Hope to engage with you in a debate sometime.
Bruh I automatically think concession when I see Seldiora 4:6 Someone else
oops, I missed that one mention in spellcheck
Thank you!
Seldiora, you called me a “he”. Again.
Did you forget again? Or is it because I’m trans?
Brilliantly done! I'm definitely taking notes! I was right to follow this debate after all.
Thanks! I like debating unpopular opinions. I feel like they can really change the ways we think.
Good luck
Yeah, you’ve got it! I, Pro, am arguing that the prison system should be done away with in the United States.
The resolution is confusing asf.
You guys are debating whether they should abolish an entire prison system, not the current prison system, meaning that PRO is advocating for prisons being banned.
Would you like to change that? :^) I bet a debate would be fun
No it is not intentional. I, despite being inside the top 10, have actually never debated against a female on this account.
sorry i forgot
I would like to remind you, AGAIN, that I am a “she” not a “he.” I am beginning to think this is intentional.
Watched Shawshank Redemption. Yeah the US might still allow prisons, but defnintely not like this.
Seldiora deserves to be in the hall of fame.
Most people have referred to them as "she," but that may be wrong
That1 is female?
Yeah, I can only think of That1, Danielle, and now Kbub. That's kind of sad.. I know there were a lot more on DDO
PIKA STALIN!
We should reform prision and aim towards rehabilitation for most crimes, with the exception of murder.
I see! What a cool design.
Regardless, welcome to the site, to a good debate and all.
You're welcome. You can tag us by putting our names in the Receivers box. That way, we'll get a notification when you say something to us. Anyway, I'm glad you're here.
@RationalMadman @SirAnonymous, many thanks! I look forward to debating you and getting to know you better.
Welcome!
Welcome to the site Kbub.
It’s not a big deal—just thought I’d mention. Especially since there are so few women debaters on this site.
This is why I just refer to my opponent as they or Con/Pro.
There are like three women on the site including you, so most of us say He unconsciously.
I’m actually a “she” not a “he” :)