Prison Reform

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

money, no transportation, no clothing, no toiletries, no housing, no way to contact people" (LylesChockley, 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 lawabiding 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-tobottom 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

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, problemsolving 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 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" (Nuez-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" (Nuez-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 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, selfmutilation, 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

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

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 governments 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 counterplans (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 industrialcomplex. 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

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" (Nuez-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 (Nuez-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

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 Works Cited

10

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 "POSTRACIAL" 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 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.

11

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-prisonreform_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-reentryprograms 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. Nuez-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://legaldictionary.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.