Good evening ladies and gentlemen, in discussing valuable initiative in the prison system, I shall be presenting the societal

side of the debate. Firstly, that this educational and motivational endeavour will create a more cohesive and productive environment in prison communities. And secondly, I will address the societal attitude towards crime and punishment. Before presenting these two substantive points, prisons are, and will always be challenging environments, filled with sights and sounds that any of us here present cannot even begin to imagine. This measure is not a magical pill, which will create a utopian existence in prisons, nor will numbers drop dramatically, but this measure will grant a measureable and significant change. Before I am able to continue with my case however, there are some issues with the Negative teams case that must be addressed. We have concluded that the points that seem the most arguable are No. 1. And No.2. Their 1st point that _________________________ is incorrect because _________________ An example of this is: Their 2nd point that _________________________ is incorrect because_________________ An example of this is:

Now to my substantive matter

My first point, is that this change will create a more cohesive and productive environment in prison communities

Again, we want to point out that education has always been on offer in the prison system, but now, prisoners will start to see a way of getting the thing that they want most freedom sooner and it is within their reach. Studies in the Californian prison system, which is noted as being one of the most dangerous and depressing prison environments in the world, changed dramatically when educational undertakings were linked to tangible privileges. No, not all prisoners took the offer of this mutually beneficial arrangement, but a significant number did and violence upon prisoners decreased, rates of substance abuse decreased and even the atmosphere in the holding buildings became notably calmer and more focussed. Transfer this finding to the debate tonight and it is clear that if you offer a prisoner a tangible reason to self-improve, a discernible number will embrace this opportunity and the flow on will be calmer and safer prison environments. Add to this, the duty of care that the government holds for its prisoners, and it is clear that the prison system will have another tool to create safer and more pleasant (if I can use the word) environments. Let us not forget as well, prison guards who labour daily under extreme and often dangerous conditions will benefit. No, a utopia will not occur overnight, or even ever in the future, but we are not aiming at a perfect prison system but one that can be improved upon and one more conducive to physical and mental health and safety. The percentage of Prison Guards who took stress leave in Queensland last year was in one of the highest brackets of any other occupation. Safe Work Australia, concluded that 64% were classified as having moderate to high levels of psychological distress brought on from a highly challenging workplace situation. The percentage of stress claims has since been increasing steadily since 2002. Under our model, prison guards can look forward to a safer environment, and the public purse will benefit since claims for stress related injuries will decrease. The prison society as a whole, in terms of atmosphere, prison safety and prison guard mental health will experience a positive change. My second point addresses community attitude towards crime and punishment. The Director General of the then QCSC, in 1998 lamented the prison systems out-moded attitude towards crime and punishment. He pointed

out that we are still firmly entrenched in Victorian values- the throwing away of the key attitude still prevails. Our model of offering an incentive to prisoners to improve themselves and reduce their prison term, inspires much-needed prison reform debate. The Director General concurred by pointing out, So many commissions, over so many years with so little organisational change! Our model addresses the over-arching mindset and re-enforces the value of education in prisons, which, I hasten to add, has always been on offer, but now needs to be presented in more acceptable, appealing and modern guise. The prison system has to, in some way, reflect societys values. We offer clean living conditions, we no longer starve prisoners and we treat them as we would like to be treated ourselves, albeit locked away and serving a sentence for harm done to society. We also, as a society value education as a potential solution to many of the worlds problems. Why shouldnt we use education to address issues like despair among the prison population, over-crowding in the system and improvement in the ambiance and environment. Offering education as an incentive, changes the paradigm and it will in the future, start a whole new crime and punishment discourse as education is used more as a central tool to addressing so many issues. In summation, Ladies and Gentlemen, we need to reduce prison sentences in exchange for completion of education qualifications. Two key points; Firstly, that it creates a more cohesive, calmer community. And secondly, that it will change the societal attitude towards crime. So in conclusion, We build prisons to hold people we are afraid of, but fill them with people we are angry at. Lets change the paradigm & put education front and centre.

REBUTALLS They say: We offer education in the prisons already. WE SAY: A one size fits all approach to education cannot work. People learn differently and presently there is no way near enough teaching people in the prison system. Placing the needs of the individual prisoner at the

centre of prison education and creating flexibility of provision would therefore be consistent with mainstream education. In order for prisoners to develop the skills, knowledge and personal qualities necessary to manage effectively both inside prison and on release, a wide range of different opportunities that reflect the diverse needs of the prison population is fundamental. Simply offering more of the same in terms of a relatively inflexible, academically inclined, school-based curriculum will not work. And that has implications for education staff, too. The need to recruit and retain high quality education staff, supported by a structured programme of continuing professional development and a rigorous inspection framework would seem to be integral to ensuring progress. They Say: Prison sentences are a deterrent. If you do the Crime you do the Time. WE SAY: The deterrent effect of prison is uniformly overstated. It is popularly thought that the indignity and strictness of the prison environment will discourage criminal behaviour. Further, exposure to the harsh realities of prison is thought to discourage former inmates from reoffending. These assumptions do not reflect most offenders reasoning, NOR do they reflect the contexts in which most criminal behaviour occurs. Punishment of the type offered by prisons doesnt meet the criteria for reinforcement of behaviour that one would associate with behaviour change; the punishment happens long after the behaviour, AND IS THEREFORE FUTILE.

They stated: that Education and Supervision will not reduce recidivism, and that the best thing to do would be to offer unfair tax credits etc to employers who hire ex-prisoners, which could be anyone from a terrorist to a murderer to rapists to a drug kingpin. WE SAY: to both these is 2 fold: 1. No support. My opponent provided no support for this position. 2. Counter support provided. I have already provided numerous pieces of un-refuted evidence about the success of this plan in reducing recidivism. They said: Actually something my opponent said that is very important: while talking about the causes of recidivism, my opponent painted a nasty picture of horrible financial conditions that drive these people to do things that land them back in prison. And I completely agree. WE SAY: We believe our opponent left out the part about how most drug traffickers (the vast majority of those who fall through the safety valve) make much less than minimum wage, and would love to get a minimum wage job. HOWEVER, due to the fact that the safety valve, which was in fact meant to give low level offenders a second chance, puts these people in

prison, where we throw the Murderers and Rapists. This plan proposes to give them a REAL second chance. By giving them education qualification and job training, this plan would actually help these people's positions in life, and hence decrease recidivism further than prison. THANK YOU to our Opposition for bringing up this important point.

They said: While talking about the causes of recidivism, my opponent painted a nasty picture of horrible financial conditions that drive these people to do things that land them back in prison. And we completely agree, IN FACT, WE SAY: our opponent left out the part about how most drug traffickers make much less than minimum wage, and would love to get a minimum wage job. However, due to the fact that the safety valve, which was in fact meant to give low level offenders a second chance, puts these people in prison, WHERE WE throw the Murderers and Rapists. OUR plan proposes to give them a REAL second chance. By giving them educational qualifications and job training, OUR PLAN would actually help these people's positions in life, and hence decrease recidivism further than prison.