Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 101166	2009-07-03 22:40:00	DEBATE: The Inaugural PressF1 Great Debate	somebody (208)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
788598	2009-07-03 22:40:00	Welcome all to the inaugural PressF1 Great Debate. This is the first debate initiated after Erayd's proposal here: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz This will be a formal debate between two teams of three members. Each team member is allowed one post. Each also team is allowed one additional concluding/summarising post at the end of the debate, which can be from any member in a team (preferably with the agreement of other team members). The rules are as follows: - Each debater will have up to 2000 words to state their argument. Debaters may (and should) build on the arguments presented by their teammates, and rebut arguments by the opposition. - Debaters are encouraged to use whatever resources they have to research the topic. - There is to be no more than 48 hours between posts - i.e. the first "speaker" of the negative team must post an argument within 48hrs after the first "speaker" of the affirmative team has posted their opening case. - Posting must alternate between teams - i.e. First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, Third Negative. - As is customary, summaries will be delivered by the Negative team first. - New substantive points may not be introduced in the final concluding/summarising posts. Guidelines for teams: - Standard PF1 rules and ettiquite apply - so no personal attacks, no txt speak etc. - Rule clarifications can be made by sending me a PM. If you believe that the other team has broken a rule, please PM me. - Speaking order can be decided by your team, however must be decided in advance (and announced in the first speaker's post) - You may discuss arguments with your teammates, and consult any resource you wish (i.e. Wikipedia, etc.) - The 2000 word limit is an absolute limit. You are under no obligation to write 2000 words - I would expect that 1000 words per debater will probably be sufficient - Links/references - please do not post links to external resources, however you are encouraged to cite important sources - for example, "according to a report by the United Nations in 2007...26.8% of blah blah blah" - Sweep has posted a useful link in Erayd's original thread outlining the obligations of each team member. There are also some excellent resources at www.debating.org.nz outlining what each team should do. Guidelines for everyone else: - Do not post in this thread unless you are on one of the teams. There is a separate thread for discussion/commentary. - At the conclusion of the debate, a poll will be opened (for 7 days) to decide the winner - Please do not interfere with the debate by heckling or otherwise disturbing any participant. --------------------------- The Teams: Thanks to everyone who PMed me. Teams have been drawn from a hat (well - names written on scraps of paper turned upside down and shuffled on my desk). If you have missed out, then you will be given automatic entry into the next PF1 debate. The teams are as follows: Affirmative: blam6 Erayd GameJunkie Negative: Sweep DemonHunter Greg Note: Teams may decide what order they will post in, however this speaking order must be announced by the first speaker in their opening post. ---------------------------- The Topic: I have tried to accommodate people's preferences for a topic category, and have chosen one which hopefully covers the majority of them. The topic is as follows: "This house would introduce military run boot camps for young offenders" The topic is what is called a 'change' debate (for more information, see www.debating.org.nz). ---------------------------- So, without further ado, I welcome the first speaker of the affirmative team to post their team's opening case (first post must be made within 48 hours).	somebody (208)
788599	2009-07-05 12:10:00	1. Moot Definition The moot for this debate is ”This house would introduce military run boot camps for young offenders”. We would like to define the moot as follows: "That the members taking part in this debate would, if it was currently in their power to do so, introduce segregated institutions for young offenders, and that these institutions would adhere largely to the style of social structure and discipline typical of most military organizations". 2. Speaking Order First affirmative: Erayd Second affirmative: GameJunkie Third affirmative: Blam6 3. Why we need a new solution The way things are currently structured, our justice system recognizes the need for treating young offenders differently to adult offenders. As these people have not yet fully developed, it is widely believed that rather than taking the standard criminal approach, it is better for everyone involved to make an attempt to change the behavioral patterns that lead to the offending, and our justice system is structured to take this into account. The offender can then move on to become a productive, well-integrated member of society without a criminal conviction hanging over them, which could otherwise prevent them from taking part fully in society and encourage re-offending. Despite the above, it's clear that this often doesn't work, and that we (New Zealand society) still have a problem with youth crime. While the current system does help in some cases, in many instances it has no effect, and the youth in question just goes right back to offending. According to youth justice statistics, the rate of youth crime is also disturbingly high - in 2006, approximately one in seven Police apprehensions were for persons between 14 and 16 years of age. Despite having only ~191,450 people in this age group resident in New Zealand at the time, the Police conducted a staggering 30,451 apprehensions in this group - that's almost one for every six people! Most offenders in this age group are either formally warned, or referred to Police Youth Aid or CYF. Adult crime rates have also seen a similar rise. 4. Proposed solution We propose introducing segregated institutions, or 'boot camps', run in a military fashion. These boot camps will teach essential life-skills and encourage positive behavioral and emotional patterns, hopefully breaking a potential lifetime pattern of crime before it becomes entrenched. 5. Why boot camps are the right solution Many of our young offenders are influenced strongly in their decisions by external factors. These can include things such as poor interpersonal or family relationships, lack of clearly defined boundaries, peer pressure, socioeconomic situation, and observations / interactions with other criminals. Boot camps help address these issues in several ways, especially where equivalent positive influences are either minimal or missing completely in the offender's regular environment. By physically segregating offenders from the social influences that helped them to offend in the first place, this reduces the likelihood that they will do it again. It's also easier to get the message across when the offender is not subject to opposing opinions and pressures at the same time. Completely immersing them in the military lifestyle forces them to adapt to it - as they are young, this adaptation process should be relatively easy. It also ensures they don't have a 'safety-blanket' to fall back on in their off-hours, and they can't pressure others into letting them have their own way. The rigid military structure imposes some very clear boundaries, with well-defined consequences for what happens if you cross them. This allows the development of an internal sense of what is and is not appropriate; something that cannot develop properly if the boundaries are always shifting. Personal responsibility is highlighted, and it is made very clear that the individual is expected to contribute and not be a burden to the rest of the group. This helps to bolster the sense of integrity, and to force them to make their own decisions regarding what is right and what is wrong. Military life usually involves long, repeated stressful situations with a clearly defined outcome. Participating in these activities will give a feeling of accomplishment, thus increasing the individual's sense of self-worth and lessening the dependence on external peer approval. In socioeconomic groups with a high crime rate, the ability for individuals to reach within themselves for guidance rather than looking externally will decrease the risk of them following the wrong person. Many military tasks require teamwork to be successful. Forcing offenders to work with others will improve their social skills, help increase their awareness of the value other members of society can provide, and teach them how to work well with others - a skill that is essential for anyone wishing to integrate properly into New Zealand society. Overall, boot camps concentrate on enhancing many positive traits, allowing the individual to participate fully in society and hopefully preventing any further offending. While no magic bullet, they should certainly help improve the situation. 6. Summary In summary, our current systems are failing to adequately address rising youth crime. Boot camps will help by exposing offenders to an extensive array of positive influences that will improve their sense of self-responsibility and ability to integrate properly into general society, thus minimizing the likelihood that they will re-offend. And with that, over to the negative team :).	Erayd (23)
788600	2009-07-05 12:18:00	Thank you to the first speaker of the affirmative team. I now call upon the first speaker of the negative team to present their opening case.	somebody (208)
788601	2009-07-07 05:59:00	1. Moot Definition. Agreed by our team. 2. Speaking order First negative Sweep Second negative DemonHunter Third negative Greg 3. Why we need a new solution. More or less agreed that the current situation does not help New Zealand society as a whole but is a military style boot camp the answer? I think not! Those who would advocate Boot Camps as a whole (or partial) solution say that they are effective in turning around the lives of those youth that have disobeyed their parents and the law to the point that it seems that they can no longer be controlled. While boot camps can be a very effective way of teaching discipline and sending a message to a troubled teenager, they should not be mistaken as a means to deal with the underlying emotional issues that are inherent with bad behaviour. Socrates (back in 469 - 399 B.C.) had this to say, "The children of today are tyrants. They talk back to their elders, slobber their food and annoy their teachers." From the Otago Daily Times 1884, "There are a number of children running about the streets of Dunedin without the control of parents. If the Government does not take them in hand .. they will become .. members of a criminal class." So in my view things have not changed since those days and a number of years have passed since then. 4. Proposed Solution. Our Team rejects your solution as it simply does not work and has been proved not to work in other countries. In the USA they had a military style boot camp in Florida since closed as an inmate died. In fact I have sources which tend to indicate that some 31 inmates have died in boot camps as published by The New York Times. I have no information as to actual cause of death of each inmate. New Zealand tried the same sort of thing under a National Government back in 1971 but that idea was abandoned ten years later. The current National Government has a bill before the house at the moment which may lower the age of criminal responsibility. I note that the team, to which you belong, so far has not done a cost benefit study but the current Government has come up with some $35 million to get the law changed in order to house the worst 40 youth offenders in a boot camp. In your (Erayd) proposed solution you mention "..hopefully breaking a potential lifetime of crime before it becomes entrenched." What do you mean by hopefully? I note you use the same word in your heading "Why are boot camps the right solution" which I will address next. A better partial solution may be early intervention by using school reports, doctors, education of parents, ensuring the viability of Plunket, outdoor team events, adventure camps, cooking skills, gardening, extended family and role models, budgeting and etc. We could bring back corporal punishment in schools but when I was in the New Zealand Army I never had corporal punishment administered. If you failed you got confined to barracks which would interfere with your off duty life to an extent where you tried to keep up your end with the platoon you were assigned to. If you did not then you had positive peer pressure. 5. Why boot camps are not the right solution Boot camps take no note of health issues such as mental problems or ADHD or Dyslexia or for that matter the parents wishes. In New Zealand we are signatories to various documents among which we say that a child has rights. This possibly accounts for some of the $35 million John Key has mentioned. In my view while researching this issue I had difficulties in coming up with actual figures and it is known that in New Zealand that the data is collected by a number of agencies such as NZ Police, CYF and the Ministry of Social Development and the data is fragmented to a large extent. Military based boot camps also dehumanise people and usually have the effect opposite to that which was intended. In the Army you are part of a unit and are expected to obey orders at any cost regardless of circumstances. For example I would not have wanted to be part of an Army that did not follow the Geneva Convention for "Rules of War." I wonder what would be the rules of a military boot camp. Most try to administer a short sharp shock (90) to (180) days for example. This would not change the behaviour at age 14-16 as at that age they would be going into puberty which as any parent could tell you it is the age of rebellion against any sort of authority. There seem to be no reliable figures regarding re offending and the rate thereof where we try to compare various forms of correction one against another. Methods of evaluation as to actual results vary and at this time there is not enough evidence to say that a military style boot camp would improve the situation by a measurable degree. In my view it is another case of putting a dysfunctional ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than a good fence at the top. There is no MAGIC BULLET but I do not believe we should use ANY BULLET just because we can.	Sweep (90)
788602	2009-07-09 08:11:00	In your post you state that boot camps cannot deal with underlying emotional issues, and in some situations this is correct. But, the moot says to introduce boot camps, not totally replace everything else with boot camps. Boot camps are designed to target teens with a specific class of problem, such as discipline issues, and not as a universal solution for all teenagers. With all due respect, you are missing the point slightly here You also state that previous boot camps take no note of mental problems or ADHD or Dyslexia – this is a completely irrelevant point as just because other camps have failed to take this into account does not necessarily mean that ours will follow the same path. If anything, our implementation will take into account the mistakes of others and be the better for it. Furthermore, you stated that the Boot Camps do not consider the Parents’ wishes, but as soon as the youth has committed a criminal offence breaking state law then it is then the State’s responsibility to deal with the criminal offender and the State certainly does not have to consider about what the parents’ think! It’s almost like saying “Why can’t the families’ of serial killers opt to counsel him/her rather than have him locked up?” The families simply have no say in this as it is the State’s responsibility to deal with breaches of criminal law. In your next paragraph you stated 2 failed examples of Boot Camps. This is not evidence of this system failing to work; instead it shows evidently that there have been specific cases of mismanagement which, with the right frameworks and safeguards in place can be easily prevented. And that was many years ago, we must think of new solutions for a new society, we must look back on what we have done wrong and create better boot camps. You also stated possible partial solutions. The school reports and the type of early intervention that you are talking about is quite irrelevant to the scope of this debate, as most of the stuff you are listing only applies to those who have not yet offended. If you’re intervening with something like Plunket, then this obviously only applies to those who have not yet offended. The Moot indicates that we are introducing Boot Camps for young offenders who may re-offend and not for those who have not done anything yet or those that may offend at some point in the future! I also agree partially with your next point that Military based boot camps can dehumanize people. What you have missed however is that a the dehumanizing part depends on what you’re teaching them. In most arms of the military you are training people to kill, that is what is dehumanizing them, but this is not applicable to a Boot Camp that is aimed to improve peoples’ integration with the rest of society. In your next statement you said that a short period of time at a Military Boot Camp would not change the behavior of a teen between ages 14-16 because this is the age of “rebellion” in puberty. I disagree with your view of this as I believe and it is proven that any situation that is stressful enough will change behavior, at some point the offender will adapt and understand that following the program is a better course of action than rebelling against it, and it will be a lesson they will not forget! The entire point of a Boot Camp is to break bad behavioral habits and drill this hard into the offender. You’ve missed the point in your next statement, as we are not replacing a fence with the ambulance, we’re saying that we’re adding in an ambulance to deal with those who repetitively climb over the fence and jump anyways. We’re also not using any old bullet, we’re using one calibrated precisely for the task of disciplining young offenders so that they do not re-offend. Once they know that jumping over thje fence will land them in an ambulance, will they jump over the fence again? In addition to correcting bad behavioral habits, you can also teach these people useful skills at the same time, which will help them contribute towards society in a positive way later on. You can also teach them values such as commitment and honesty that will make them a better person that will in time help create a better community. Blam	Blam (54)
788603	2009-07-11 05:42:00	In your post you state that: "Boot camps are designed to target teens with a specific class of problem, such as discipline issues, and not as a universal solution for all teenagers" . I see one problem with forcing a teenager who is struggling with discipline issues to attend a military style boot camp - if they do not want to be there in the first place (and lets admit it, they won't) we have lost before we even begin . The strict enforcement of law and loss of their choice will only cause them to rebel and hate authority even more . While they may get through the boot camp without venting this anger and rebellion, what do you think will happen when they are 'released'? Unless they are in these boot camps long enough to become brainwashed - these young rebellious teenagers will just store up inside themselves all manner of hate and anger they will release on any form of authority they can when given the opportunity . While not all will respond this way, in the event that any percent do - this seems completly couter-intuiative to the purpose behind running these boot camps . The problem with introducing these military style boot-camps for is a desperate and typical attempt at trying to solve a problem by throwing resources at the result of a problem that will continue to re-occur untill the root cause of this underlying problem has been dealt to . - Fact: We have rebellious teenagers committing reckless crime . - Fact: These teenagers did not begin their life committing crime . Conclusion: Somewhere between birth and and the time they began committing crime, they were influenced to act the way the do . Instead of suggesting punishments and solutions to the problem that has occured we need to be: 1 - Identifying the undesirable condition that needs to be corrected and all events associated with this condition - "Why is this happening?" 2 - Continue asking 'why' to indentify the causes of this undesirable condition - Record all data and identify emerging patterns 3 - Keep asking 'why' untill a fundamental or root cause is aparant - Refrain from trying to fix each event but rather focus on systemic explanations 4 - Define the problem(s) by describing the root causes creating them 5 - Determine the action(s) needed to change the relationship creating this problem Once we have followed these steps we will see where the real problems are and our Government and society would be much advised to go about solving the cause rather than the result . " . . . we’re saying that we’re adding in an ambulance to deal with those who repetitively climb over the fence and jump anyways . We’re also not using any old bullet, we’re using one calibrated precisely for the task of disciplining young offenders so that they do not re-offend . Once they know that jumping over the fence will land them in an ambulance, will they jump over the fence again?" After doing some research, I found that the percentage of repeat offenders was anywhere from 27% to 81% depending on the seriousness of the crime committed . So based on these statistics we can see that this ambulance could potentially be dealing with a fairly large number of offenders . "You can also teach them values such as commitment and honesty that will make them a better person that will in time help create a better community . " I think this should be changed to include an 'IF you can teach . . . ' While I do agree that if they could be taught these skills they would come out of the boot camp and have something to contribute to society - we are failing to stop the cause of these offenders . Unless we can garauntee constant positive results from these boot camps - they will continue to cost the tax payer in an economical time when government resources might be best invested elsewhere .	Bozo (8540)
788604	2009-07-13 05:18:00	I see one problem with forcing a teenager who is struggling with discipline issues to attend a military style boot camp - if they do not want to be there in the first place (and let’s admit it, they won't) we have lost before we even begin. The strict enforcement of law and loss of their choice will only cause them to rebel and hate authority even more. While they may get through the boot camp without venting this anger and rebellion, what do you think will happen when they are 'released'? Unless they are in these boot camps long enough to become brainwashed - these young rebellious teenagers will just store up inside themselves all manner of hate and anger they will release on any form of authority they can when given the opportunity. The whole point of this program is that they're in these camps long enough to do some good. While not all will respond this way, in the event that any percent do - this seems completely counter-intuitive to the purpose behind running these boot camps. They're saying that *any* percentage not responding means the entire scheme needs to be ditched. This is faulty logic - it's like saying one failing student means that our entire education system needs to be scrapped. The problem with introducing these military style boot-camps for is a desperate and typical attempt at trying to solve a problem by throwing resources at the result of a problem that will continue to re-occur until the root cause of this underlying problem has been dealt to. No, it's a complimentary measure designed to catch and attempt to correct those who slip through the preventative nets. - Fact: We have rebellious teenagers committing reckless crime. - Fact: These teenagers did not begin their life committing crime. Conclusion: Somewhere between birth and the time they began committing crime, they were influenced to act the way they do. Instead of suggesting punishments and solutions to the problem that has occurred we need to be: 1 - Identifying the undesirable condition that needs to be corrected and all events associated with this condition - "Why is this happening?" 2 - Continue asking 'why' to indentify the causes of this undesirable condition - Record all data and identify emerging patterns 3 - Keep asking 'why' until a fundamental or root cause is apparent - Refrain from trying to fix each event but rather focus on systemic explanations 4 - Define the problem(s) by describing the root causes creating them 5 - Determine the action(s) needed to change the relationship creating this problem Once we have followed these steps we will see where the real problems are and our Government and society would be much advised to go about solving the cause rather than the result. The negative team is missing the point entirely, and this is something they have refused to acknowledge the entire debate. Boot camps were never proposed as a preventative measure, they are intended *only* for those who are missed by the preventative measures and offend anyway!!! As we've mentioned before, and the negative team has agreed, there is no 'magic bullet' - and this applies to prevention schemes too. If they have a viable alternative that will prevent all youth offending before it happens, then I suggest they actually say what it is. Anything else is just babbling with no substance behind it. "...we’re saying that we’re adding in an ambulance to deal with those who repetitively climb over the fence and jump anyways. We’re also not using any old bullet, we’re using one calibrated precisely for the task of disciplining young offenders so that they do not re-offend. Once they know that jumping over the fence will land them in an ambulance, will they jump over the fence again?" After doing some research, I found that the percentage of repeat offenders was anywhere from 27% to 81% depending on the seriousness of the crime committed. So based on these statistics we can see that this ambulance could potentially be dealing with a fairly large number of offenders. Yes - which indicates that we need a pretty serious ambulance to deal with those who don't respond to preventative measures. "You can also teach them values such as commitment and honesty that will make them a better person that will in time help create a better community." I think this should be changed to include an 'IF you can teach...' Fair point, but surely teaching these skills to even some of the participants is a good thing. 50% honest and committed is better than 100% lazy and apathetic. While I do agree that if they could be taught these skills they would come out of the boot camp and have something to contribute to society - we are failing to stop the cause of these offenders. Again, they're missing the point - boot camps aren't intended as a preventative measure, they're intended to catch those who slip through. Unless we can guarantee constant positive results from these boot camps - they will continue to cost the tax payer in an economical time when government resources might be best invested elsewhere. If they think *any* scheme can be guaranteed to have a 100% success rate, they're dreaming. What we will see is a substantial success rate - it won't be 100%, but it will be large enough to be well worth the expense. I believe a lot of the teens that get into trouble do so only because they have got in with the wrong group of people. They need to be taken off the streets, and put into an environment where they must learn to respect authority, and are away from negative peer pressure. Boot camps would achieve this, where the current system simply sends them back onto the street, where they are more than likely to get back in with a similar group of people and re-offend. A common issue a lot of people have with the idea of army run boot camps is they believe it will simply turn these youth into more hardened criminals, and make them more lethal when they are released. It’s important to remember the camps would not be like army training in the way that the youth would not be trained on how to use weapons and how to fight, but they will be imposed with the strict rules, expectations and guidelines that the army imposes, and given structure that must be adhered to. They would also be taking part in many activities that require a decent amount of work and thought, as well as teamwork, which is very important if we are trying to get these youth to function normally in society. It is vital that if NZ as a country is to progress in the area of reducing youth crime, things need to change. If the justice system is left that way it is currently, there is going to be no improvement, and going by the trends seen in the last few years, we would experience a rise in youth offending, and the offences would become more violent, more unprovoked and could eventually turn parts of the country into a living nightmare. This needs to change – the best shot NZ has of achieving the goal of reducing youth offending, and particularly re-offending, is to implement boot camps.	wratterus (105)
788605	2009-07-14 13:10:00	They're saying that *any* percentage not responding means the entire scheme needs to be ditched. This is faulty logic - it's like saying one failing student means that our entire education system needs to be scrapped. Not necessarily - this is a correctional system we are talking about. With a school (and failing student) people have a choice whether or not to better themselves through hard work and study. Now compare that to a correctional facility where people are sent to pay for their crimes - these are not opportunities people can take or leave as they wish - this is a system designed specifically for keeping criminals away from the public. If a correction system cannot guarantee a high percentage of success - then it seriously needs to be looked at. (And I think NZ's current correction system would be a good topic for the next debate :p) Boot camps were never proposed as a preventative measure, they are intended *only* for those who are missed by the preventative measures and offend anyway!!! Yes - which indicates that we need a pretty serious ambulance to deal with those who don't respond to preventative measures. So its *only* for those who slip though? And this *only* seems to be a fairly large number in need of a "pretty serious ambulance"? If they think *any* scheme can be guaranteed to have a 100% success rate, they're dreaming. What we will see is a substantial success rate - it won't be 100%, but it will be large enough to be well worth the expense. I wasn't suggestion it needed to have 100% success rate - however, as this is a system for criminals the success rate needs to be much higher than a school for instance. Remember people, these are criminals we are talking about, not just school children who have misbehaved. I believe a lot of the teens that get into trouble do so only because they have got in with the wrong group of people. They need to be taken off the streets, and put into an environment where they must learn to respect authority, and are away from negative peer pressure...(snip) Definitely agree with you here, which goes along the lines of what my previous argument was about. Prevention is always better than cure. I think the affirmative team has lost sight of is the fact that we are talking about criminals - these are people who have willingly gone out of their way to cause harm and grief to innocent people. These criminals don't deserve to be treated as normal people, they had their chances and they abused them and now they must pay a punishment. While a boot camp is hardly a holiday - it is also hardly a fitting punishment for a criminal. Do you think that the chance of ending up in boot camp for a year or so is enough to deter young people from even thinking about committing crime? Go and ask a typical young person out there today if they are worried about the consequences of being caught - do they care? Most don't, so I can hardly see how the prospect of ending up in boot camp is going to help deter them from criminal activity. What NZ needs is much harsher non-parole based sentences, and reduce the quality of prison life. Prison is supposed to be an awful place to end up - somewhere you would do nearly anything to avoid winding up in. A solution for criminal - and in particular youth crime - in NZ is to make prison sentencing much harsher and conditions as bare bones as is humanely possible. We cannot afford to lose focus about who we are dealing with - we are dealing with criminals - and criminals should be dealt to severely so as to deter others from following a similar path.	Bozo (8540)
788606	2009-07-14 20:47:00	That concludes the substantive posts for this debate. Up next are the leader's replies (summaries). As is customary, the negative team will go first, followed by the affirmative team to close the debate. I would like to remind teams that these leader's replies are intended to serve a couple of main purposes: - Tidy up any remaining pieces of (crucial) rebuttal) - Wrap up and reiterate your side of the debate - "Our team has told you ....." - Tell the audience why you should win - "Our team has said ... the opposition hasn't ..." They should be short and concise (i.e. a summary), rather than re-debating everything that has been said. At the conclusion of the debate there will be a poll for PF1 members to vote. Good luck to both teams.	somebody (208)
788607	2009-07-16 05:21:00	The affirmative team has not came up with any costing for the proposed boot camp(s). The current National Government has come up with a figure of $35,000,000 to incarcerate the worst 40 youth so this means $875,000 per person on system that has been tried in the past and found to be sadly wanting in actual results. The negative team has not come up with an example of a single person who had been put into a boot camp and who had actually benefitted by the experience in so far as he/she had been released and become a productive member of Society and had not re-offended with two years. The negative team has come up with alternatives but we want to do it earlier rather than later and get at the actual underlying causes. But if we cant solve the underlying causes then why not put these people in the system we currently have. All a boot camp would do is add another layer into an already unwieldy system. We need to use what we have now (or similar) but do it more efficiently and at an earlier age.	Sweep (90)
1 2