Prisons Are Closed Institutions

"Prisons are closed institutions. They are established and funded by governments to hold people against their will". This seems to be a known thought amongst society members based on personal beliefs. People often ask themselves if there is a need to reform prisons. The government, citizens, educators, and even prisoners are divided about the right answers. There is disagreement in society about how the purpose of the prison system should be considered. On one hand, the regulations of the prison system may seek deterrence, incapacitation, or retribution to avoid appearing too soft on inmates. On the other hand, the regulations of the prison system may seek to opportunities to re-socialize prisoners or to effect changes in the character, attitudes,

To determine success in the prison system, the considerable resolutions 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 law-abiding 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 (Pinard, 2006). 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-to-bottom overhaul - and a movement of people ready to do something about it is taking shape nicely" (McCarthy,

As a community there is 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 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 some teams, but if that is so then there is no harm in a topic badly in need of 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 prison