The purpose of this Deliberation Nation project was to foster discussion and active thinking about solutions to a prominent public issue. I believe my group’s deliberation, “Sentenced to Rehabilitation: Rehumanizing the Prison System,” and that of another group I attended, “Gen V: Take a Hi(n)t,” both achieved this purpose, although there were some differences in our presentations.

 

One of the first criteria each group had to meet was to create a solid information base. Through research, Team Overview gave thorough introduction to our topic by detailing the progression of prisons through United States history, from rehabilitation to the “get tough on crime” attitude of the 1970s till today. Also, each approach briefly gave our audience information about education, civil responsibilities, and recovery to ignite discussion. During the personal stake, several of our audience members volunteered that they had family or friends who worked in the prison system. These participants provided insight about the prison system that helped us assess the effectiveness of our approaches.

 

Another quality of effective deliberation is identifying a broad range of solutions. Our deliberation did well by using mini-ideas within each approach. For example, the education approach encompassed high school, college, and trade school education; we were able to discuss the merits and disadvantages of each of these types of education. The Gen V deliberation, however, had three to four clear-cut approaches within all of their general approaches. These “sub-approaches” helped the participants decide which had more merit and modify the approach. For example, when talking about speakers hosted by high schools to discuss the vaping epidemic, the group proposed that instead of teachers or professionals talking, students who had experienced vaping addiction should speak, as they are more relatable. We also modified approaches in our own deliberation, such as inmate certification to teach other inmates for greater relatability as well as government incentives for mental or substance abuse health professionals to work in prison instead of mandates. The deliberation opened our approaches up to all opinions so that we could identify a large spectrum of solutions.

 

While considering the solutions, deliberation groups had to weigh the pros, cons, and tradeoffs to each. In my group’s deliberation, we had separate moderators and discussions for the pros and cons to try to give each side its due time. One of the major tradeoffs we had to consider was taxpayer cost to fund rehabilitative programs; after consideration, we decided that the best idea would be to reallocate tax money away from harmful prison practices (like isolation) and toward these rehabilitative programs. The Gen V deliberation moderated differently in that their discussion intermingled the pros and cons. However, they also fairly moderated the tradeoffs like in our deliberation. Specifically, the group talked about the impact a ban on selling vapes may have on small businesses; they made the tradeoff that public health is more important, and the government can protect small businesses by providing them with incentives to stop selling vapes.

 

Each deliberation is tasked with trying to make the best decision possible based on the discussion. In my group’s deliberation, I felt that we did not really come to a clear consensus. Although we were running out of time, Team Summary pretty much did only a summary of the general talking points for each approach. However, I prefer the strategy of Gen V’s deliberation. As the deliberation progressed, they wrote down their notes on a large paper pad then hung them on the wall after each approach finished. Then when it came time to summarize, the moderators asked the group to read over the notes on the wall and pick out major ideas that the group had agreed and disagreed on (which they compiled on the notepad). In this way, the group hashed out the biggest takeaways for themselves, allowing a clearer consensus on the solution, instead of just a summary like my group’s conclusion.

 

Up until now, I have reflected on the analytical criteria for the deliberation. I will now evaluate the social criteria, starting with adequately distributing speaking opportunities. My group’s moderators did well at targeting specific parts of the room that had been quiet. Even though we had a large audience, we were able to invite pretty much everyone to talk. Our moderators also effectively and respectfully cut off long-winded and rambling stories in order to give others the chance to talk. At the Gen V deliberation, the moderators called out quiet people by name; since my deliberation had a larger turnout, we called out sections of the room since we couldn’t see people’s nametags. Each method was effective at including people in the discussion.

 

Another social quality of deliberation is ensuring mutual comprehension. Whenever someone’s point was unclear during my group’s deliberation, one of our moderators made sure to clarify what they were saying; this clarification ensured proper recording by Team Summary and a better understanding for the general audience. Another way that my group facilitated comprehension was by keeping the notes board where every participant could see.

 

One of the most important aspects of the deliberation was to respect other participants. Without respect, the discussion would fall apart; moderators and participants needed to listen to each person’s contribution and acknowledge their right to an opinion. I believe that both my group and Gen V’s deliberations fulfilled this aspect. Everyone in each group listened to each other and did not cut one another off, giving each individual the opportunity to speak. In my group’s deliberation, we made sure to include the people with specific experience relating to the prison system in balance with others who had less experience. In Gen V’s deliberation, the participants shared all of their different high school experiences about vaping trials that worked or didn’t work in their experience; by respecting each other’s right to contribute, the group could use those various backgrounds to build a more solid network of solutions.

 

Overall, I think that these deliberations were a great success. Through them, we effectively generated solutions in a respectful and democratic manner. I hope that we can learn from these experiences to help society have more civil discussions on controversial topics.