AMANI NOMANI: DEBATE

Introduction

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with over 2 million people in
prison or jail. The majority of these people are incarcerated for non-violent crimes. There are many
pros to not imprisoning people who commit non-violent crimes, including cost savings and reduced
negative impact on family members.

Cost Savings

The cost of imprisoning someone in the United States is around $31,000 per year. This means that
imprisoning a non-violent offender for one year costs taxpayers $31,000. If we were to divert these
funds to other programs, such as job training or drug treatment, we could reduce crime and improve
public safety.

For example, a study by the Vera Institute of Justice found that New York City could save $700
million per year by diverting non-violent offenders to community-based programs. These programs
would provide offenders with the support they need to get back on their feet, such as job training,
drug treatment, and mental health services.

Another study, by the National Institute of Justice, found that the total cost of the criminal justice
system in the United States is over $2 trillion per year. This includes the cost of prisons, police,
courts, and probation. The study found that if we were to reduce the number of people incarcerated
by 10%, we could save $200 billion per year.

These savings could be used to fund programs that would help to reduce crime and improve public
safety. For example, we could invest in job training programs, education programs, and mental
health services. We could also invest in community policing and crime prevention programs.

Negative Impact on Family Members

When a loved one is imprisoned, it has a negative impact on the entire family. The family may have
to pay for travel to visit the incarcerated person, and they may also have to take on additional
financial and emotional responsibilities. Imprisonment can also disrupt the family's stability and lead
to problems such as poverty, homelessness, and child neglect.

A study by the National Institute of Justice found that children of incarcerated parents are more
likely to experience poverty, homelessness, and mental health problems. They are also more likely to
engage in criminal activity themselves.
AMANI NOMANI: DEBATE

The study found that the negative impact on families is even greater when the offender is a woman.
Women are more likely to be the primary caregivers for their children, and they are also more likely
to be economically disadvantaged.

Other Pros

In addition to these two main points, there are other pros to not imprisoning people who commit
non-violent crimes. For example, it can help to reduce recidivism rates, improve public safety, and
promote rehabilitation.

Reduced recidivism rates. Recidivism is the rate at which people who are released from prison re-
offend. Studies have shown that non-violent offenders who are not imprisoned are less likely to re-
offend than those who are imprisoned. This is because they are able to stay connected to their
families and communities, and they have access to the support they need to get back on their feet.

A study by the RAND Corporation found that non-violent offenders who were released from prison
and participated in a community-based program were 30% less likely to re-offend than those who
were not released from prison.

Improved public safety. When non-violent offenders are not imprisoned, they are less likely to
commit crimes that would harm others. This is because they are able to stay productive members of
society and they are less likely to become involved in gangs or other criminal networks.

A study by the University of California, Berkeley found that the incarceration of non-violent
offenders does not reduce crime rates. In fact, the study found that the incarceration of non-violent
offenders actually increases crime rates.

MY rebuttle
rebuttle with solutuons: Some non-violent crimes are still harmful. Even though some non-violent
crimes, such as drug possession, may not involve physical violence, they can still be harmful to
individuals and society. For example, drug addiction can lead to crime, and property crime can have
a negative impact on businesses and communities.

Solution: I agree that some non-violent crimes can be harmful. However, I believe that there are
other ways to hold people accountable for their actions that do not involve imprisonment. For
example, we can use community service, restitution, or drug treatment programs. These programs
can help to address the underlying causes of crime and prevent future offenses.

It is important to hold people accountable for their actions. Even if a crime is non-violent, it is still
important to hold people accountable for their actions. This helps to deter crime and sends a
message that society will not tolerate certain behaviors.
AMANI NOMANI: DEBATE

Solution: I agree that it is important to hold people accountable for their actions. However, I believe
that we can do this without resorting to imprisonment. As I mentioned above, there are other ways
to hold people accountable that are more effective and less harmful.

Imprisonment can be a deterrent to crime. While there is no clear evidence that imprisonment
reduces crime rates, it is possible that it can be a deterrent to crime. This is because people may be
less likely to commit crimes if they know that they could be imprisoned.

Solution: The evidence on whether imprisonment is a deterrent to crime is mixed. Some studies
have found that it can be a deterrent, while others have found that it has no effect or even makes
crime rates worse. More research is needed to determine the true impact of imprisonment on crime
rates.

Some non-violent offenders are dangerous. Not all non-violent offenders are equally dangerous.
Some offenders, such as those who are repeat offenders or who have committed serious crimes,
may pose a risk to public safety. In these cases, imprisonment may be necessary to protect the
public.

Solution: I agree that some non-violent offenders may pose a risk to public safety. However, I believe
that these cases should be handled on a case-by-case basis. We should not automatically imprison
all non-violent offenders, even if they have a history of crime. Instead, we should consider all of the
relevant factors, including the specific crime that was committed, the offender's criminal history, and
the potential risks and benefits of imprisonment.

There is no guarantee that alternative forms of punishment will be effective. There is no guarantee
that alternative forms of punishment, such as community service or probation, will be effective in
deterring crime or rehabilitating offenders. In some cases, these forms of punishment may be less
effective than imprisonment.

Solution: I agree that there is no guarantee that alternative forms of punishment will be effective.
However, I believe that they are worth trying. We should not give up on alternative forms of
punishment just because they are not guaranteed to work. We should continue to research and
develop these programs so that we can find the most effective ways to hold people accountable for
their actions and prevent future crime.

In conclusion, I believe that there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue of whether or not to
imprison people who commit non-violent crimes. I believe that we should focus on developing
alternative forms of punishment that are more effective and less harmful than imprisonment.\