Pope High School Stock NC

Clay Stewart
A. Definitions
1) Public Health1

The art and science dealing with the protection and improvement of community health by organized
community effort.

2) Criminal Justice2

The system of law enforcement, involving police, lawyers, courts, and corrections, used for all stages of
criminal proceedings and punishment.

B. Framework
The Value for the Round is Morality. The Value-Criterion for the Round is Upholding Moral
Obligations.

Prefer This Framework Because the Word Ought in the Resolution Signifies Moral Obligation

Richard Robinson of the Royal Institute of Philosophy writes:34

The moral ought and ought not connect[s] directly with right and wrong. They do not connect directly with
good and bad. It is not true that we morally ought to do good and ought not to do what is bad. We ought to do what is
right, that is, what we are required to do: and we ought not to do what is wrong, that is, what we are forbidden to do.
We cannot go further and bring in good and bad, because good and bad are far wider than the
sphere of our duties. It is good to keep your garden beautiful; but you have no duty to keep your
garden beautiful. It is bad to dance badly; but you are entitled to dance badly . If a man says we ought to
do good, we can ask him whether we ought to do all good, or do good all the time, or do some good sometimes. The most he
can say is that a man ought to do some good sometimes . “It is good to do what you ought to do” is true; but “You ought to do
what it is good to do” is false; and “You ought to do what it is best to do” is false. Ought and ought not are [is] not used
in the statement of, or the deduction from, all kinds of law and rule. The legal law does not say that a man
“ought” to pay income-tax; nor does the collector deduce from the legal law and your income what you
“ought” to pay. Nor do the rules of soccer say that only the goalkeeper “ought” to use his hands. It is primarily the
moral law that expresses itself and its consequence by means of ought and ought not.

C. The Case
Observation One: The Affirmative’s Burden
The Affirmative in this debate has the burden to affirm the entirety of the resolution. Thus, the
Affirmative has the burden to prove not only that the abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a
matter of public health, but that said abuse ought not be treated as a matter of criminal justice.

1
Merriam-Webster
2
Dictionary.com
3
Robinson, Richard. “Ought and Ought Not” Royal Institute of Philosophy. Philosophy, Vol. 46, No. 177 . pp. 193-202. July
1971.
4
Associate Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University
1
Pope High School Stock NC
Clay Stewart
Contention One: Drug Courts
1) Drug Courts Are An Effective Way to Reduce Drug Use, Crime, And Recidivism Rates

Government Accountability Office, 20055:

In most of the evaluations we reviewed, adult drug court programs led to recidivism reductions during
periods of time that generally corresponded to the length of the drug court program—that is, within-program. Our
analysis of evaluations reporting recidivism data for 23 programs showed that lower percentages of drug court
program participants than comparison group members were rearrested or reconvicted. Program
participants also had fewer incidents of rearrests or reconvictions and a longer time until rearrest
or reconviction than comparison group members. These recidivism reductions were observed for
any felony offense and for drug offenses, whether they were felonies or misdemeanors. However, we were
unable to find conclusive evidence that specific drug court program components, such as the behavior of the judge, the
amount of treatment received, the level of supervision provided, and the sanctions for not complying with program
requirements, affect participants' within-program recidivism. Post-program recidivism reductions were measured for up to 1
year after participants completed the drug court program in several evaluations, and in these the evidence suggests that
the recidivism differences observed during the program endured.

2) Drug Courts Are More Effective Than Other Alternatives

Huddleston, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, et
al., 20086:

Research verifies that no other justice intervention can rival the results produced by drug courts. Drug
courts are demonstratively effective. According to over a decade of research, drug courts significantly improve
substance abuse treatment outcomes, substantially reduce crime, and produce greater cost benefits
than any other justice strategy. Scientists from the Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania
reported in 2003, "To put it bluntly, we know that drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that
have been used with drug-involved offenders." Additionally, Columbia University's historic analysis of drug
courts concluded that drug courts provide "closer, more comprehensive supervision and much more frequent drug testing and
monitoring during the program than other forms of community supervision. More importantly, drug use and criminal
behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court." In 2005, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) published an extensive review of drug court research and concluded that adult
drug court programs substantially reduce crime by lowering re-arrest and conviction rates among
drug court graduates well after program completion, and thus, greater cost/benefits for drug court participants
and graduates than comparison group members.

5
Office, Government Accountability. "Rehabilitation Reduces Recidivism Rates Among Drug Offenders." Crime and
Criminals. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In
Context. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.
6
"Drug Court Supervision Is a Viable Alternative to Mandatory Minimum Sentences." Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Ed.
Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10
Nov. 2010.
2