A New Radical Justice System
When I was a little boy, say five years old, I would be what most would consider a highly philosophically-minded child. When my teacher told me that I should put my hand up to ask a question I asked her why, when she got annoyed she would just tell me to shut up and sit down (in kinder words than the ones I proposed). However, I never understood the rule, nor did I feel the need to obey it... Because being shut up and told to sit down isn't truly terrifying. On the other hand, if I had been caned for such a minor 'crime' in the rules then it clearly reduces the effectiveness of making a student realise what's truly wrong and what's slightly wrong and makes them see breaking the rule of not talking in class as equally bad/good as breaking the rule of not raping their best friend. This is where my attack on imprisonment originated. Sure, worse crimes mean longer sentences but realistically prison is prison. What prison teaches society is that the law is either entirely stupid or entirely worthy. So if a person has to choose between stealing or arson, which should they pick? Now, it seems common sense to pick theft but think harder. If a prison sentence, where getting gang raped and treated like a worthless slave is the norm, is the punishment for both theft and arson which would you pick? Well the first line of logic is that if you're going to get bullied in a horribly degrading place named prison you might as well go in for a legendary crime. The second line of logic is that it's far easier to spot a thief, what with a CCTV camera on practically every street in the more economically developed countries, than it is to spot an arsonist. The arson could merely have been ignited by a lighted piece of paper thrown far from the arsonist's hand to a patch of gasoline of dry wood far from where they are standing. This is far harder to pin on one person than a theft is. Even worse is that if it is done at a petrol station, it can so easily be made out to be a 100% accident. And even then, there could be diminished responsibility if the person happened to have any mental disorder etc. Thus, despite the average human seeing burning down people and/or forests as far worse than theft, if we objectively observed the justice system in place it would be wiser for one to be an arsonist than a thief.
However, where my radically new justice system (revealed after this) is truly going to change things is in cases where rape, murder and torture are all given pretty much equal punishments: Jailed for life. However, I guarantee you that I would never rank a guy who shot another person in the back of the head anywhere near as bad a person as one who does things as vulgar as paper-cutting a woman's vagina, inseminating a nine year old who happened to hit puberty early enough to have gotten pregnant from it. But believe it or not, the current justice system, in almost any country, would sentence both men to jail till death (or 30 years+ in most non Muslim countries, since 'life sentence' is only valid in the Middle East and certain Muslim African countries, such as Egypt and Somalia)
IS THIS FAIR?!
Can we change it with the current system?!
Should a murderer and torturer be given the same punishment when the torture blatantly gave more pain?!
Most people who have known me in life have described me as a mad-man, a genius of the rarest kind, the next Hitler and a fool. Most names came before my system was suggested and after I told my justice system to people they have freaked out saying it's insanely wrong and unjustified. If you are merely going to take the position of Con and say I'm not normal or sane or that I'm incorrect because I don't conform to normality please 'x' this page now because I don't have time for you conformist fools of society. You don't know what is truth and what is lie.
Now I shall propose the system:
When to use prison:
Prison sentence length shall be relative to crime. The exact lengths might still be debatable due to different cultures and societies.
When to use my system [I shall explain what 'my system' is just after this]:
I promise you that in such a world, we'd come far closer to complete absence of crime.
Since no specific argument has been presented, I will give the debate topic:
Pro must prove that the justice system presented above is morally superior and more practical in keeping crime at bay than any other justice systems in existence. I will argue that the above-mentioned justice system is not morally superior.
This is to ensure both sides know exactly what is being debating.
By providing further support to his case in the next round, my opponent agrees to/acknowledges the parameters I have set. If not, my opponent will present his own topic. If I find my opponent's set of parameters to be fair, I will present my statements/rebuttals. If not, both sides agree to a settlement and the debate shall be deemed a tie.
This is nothing to do with morality. Criminals by their very nature have broken the code of morality placed down by society and thus do not deserve moral treatment in the first place (do you really consider the treatment of prisoners moral, often being gang raped in the showers, beaten up by thugs etc.?)
Morality: A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
Moral: Concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society.
Immoral: Not conforming to accepted standards of morality.
Criminal: A person who has committed a crime.
Crime: An action or activity considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong.
I do not accept the parameter of morality as my system was never proposed to be morally superior, only practically superior. Morally the current system punishes a sadistic torturer the same as an assassin, who usually causes painless deaths. I do not really see how on Earth you can call that system moral in the first place but seriously that should not be the focus or parameter of the debate. This is about justice, not mercy.
Justice: The administration of the law or authority in maintaining just behaviour or treatment.
Just: Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
Mercy: Compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm.
If you were taken from a street and a brutal man, far stronger than yourself, ripped your anus open whereby blood loss and permanent scarring were the result, perhaps he even got 'kinky' an decided to use toys of certain brutality what would be your initial response? Oh, okay let me just be cool with it... He'll get locked up, perhaps will be released if he gets in the 'good behaviour book' for some years and perhaps will be better for society than than he is now... Well... no. The human being is an animal, I needn't supply evidence for this, because whether or not evolution is true or false, we do share 96% of our DNA coding with chimpanzees. Now, the most common way of training/taming a chimpanzee or monkey for circus purposes has been the opposite of my system: rewarding for good behaviour. So, the chimp learns that when they jump high, they get a banana, if they jump EXTRA high they get a MANGO! Now this is all good and well but the reason you don't whip the chimpanzee when it does the trick wrong is simple; it will think that if it jumps high it is doing it wrong and won't try to go higher because it foresees more pain. Humans, usually, are smarter than chimpanzees (I won't bother to source this, it's common knowledge). They have learnt that just because your mother slaps you when you swear at her doesn't mean talking to your mother is wrong, nor that when your father slaps you for not taking out the rubbish fast enough (hypothetically) that taking out eh rubbish is the reason for the pain. It is this human intelligence which has allowed extremely sophisticated societies to be built, laws to be made and cultures to have formed. Now, in the olden days if you stole your hand got cut off (still happens in Saudi Arabia), if you swore, you got your tongue cut out. And funnily enough, Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates of the world, in all lines of crime other than rape and piracy of entertainment content (e.g. movies and games) (the issue with rape is because of the idiocy if Shahriah Law regarding blaming the way a girl is dressed for her being raped, the issue with piracy is they are not as sophisticated at detecting it as the EU, Australia, New Zealand and USA who have the lowest crime rates in these sectors, and when they don't truly comprehend why it's illegal, Shahriah law does not cover copyright in much detail) (I challenge my opponent to prove otherwise). The primary reason for such low crime rate is that capital punishment, lashings and brutal removal of limbs and digits is commonplace as opposed to prison in Saudi Arabia. This is the 21st Century and so is very relevant to current society. With a crime rate so low it is clear that such a society clearly is very practical at stopping crime. The reason is simple; prison only instigates the emotional terror of loneliness, isolation and boredom but pain, and according to my system the EXACT METHOD IF INFLICTING PAIN THAT THE CRIMINAL USED, instigates the entire brain into a panic attack. The evolutionary purpose for this is simple; if an animal is going to be isolated from society it feels sad, slightly scared and depressed, it will have few social contacts and be in a new unfamiliar environment where it could die. However, the suffering is slight and soon they adapt and find a way to find happiness. This is not only because prison enables new friendships to be formed but also because prison is a long process, it gives the person time to adjust and find a new level of happiness to deal with (hence why people in poverty often manage to find friends and have fun in dire conditions, often by using music). However, my system would be the true terror that their went through. Unless the person held their victim imprisoned for years on end (whereby my system would merely send them to as extremely isolated prison where they can be treated like the piece of dirt that they are, in almost identical conditions that their victim was) my system shows them what they did was wrong. Imagine going to hit a little girl then raping her... then half way through thinking OH NO! She will cry and tell people what happened then everything I did to her will happen to me! NO! NO! MUST STOP! You are more likely to truly know and understand moral correctness when you realise what you did to her will happen to you. You will begin to comprehend the wrongness and incorrectness of what you are doing. Whereas if you think bahahaha worst that can happen is a prison sentence where all I have to do is keep my head down and avoid people and get by, you won't be likely to stop. You won't be thinking of isolation from society while in such a carnal activity. However Pain and Pleasure originate from the same part of the brain and if you fear pain while getting pleasure, you will suddenly pause the urge to feel pleasure since it is that direct part of the brain where the fear is influencing. IF you know that as you make her scream and cry in terror and pain that every moment she is screaming and crying will be a moment in which you will scream and cry under the exact same conditions, if not worse (since we have to alter it to be more brutal because adults have higher pain tolerance and has to be equal in del (I stated this is the unit in which pain is measured in my round 1 debate) then you will panic and stop. In the end, rape isn't so fun when you know you are about to be raped in the exact same way, in fact no crime is fun when the thing you do will be done to you.
"my system...[is] practically superior" My opponent means to argue practical superiority over that of every other justice system in the world.
I will argue that the system presented is not practically superior.
Practical: (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. . .suitable for a particular purpose
My opponent's main contentions are: Justice systems today do not sufficiently punish criminal actions + direct physical crimes committed must be reciprocated on the criminal
The main supporting arguments to these contentions are hypothetical situations and Saudi Arabia.
It is very important to note that the main driving force behind my opponent's belief that his justice system (what's best in practical terms) is his personal sense of justice. There is a fault to his 'justice'. In comparing torture with murder, arson with theft, et cetera et cetera, my opponent implicitly claims to be the model to judging the degrees of evil in a crime and that the judgment of others are null and void compared to his. In essence, his personal standards outweigh that of any other people. What makes torture worse than death (I'd rather take a week of torture than die)? Why is arson worse than theft? Already, a problem appears in my opponent's justice system. It is based around the judgment of one person alone (namely, my opponent himself). Practicality has already been lost in that there will have to be a constant reference to one person for all anomalous cases (because, as you yourself has already seen when presenting your views to others, the number who has tacitly/explicitly expressed opposition to your personal judgment is unsurprisingly high; no one shares your views). As such, the definition of practical, (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances, already negates my opponent's contention in that his system is NOT LIKELY to be implemented at all. Other justice systems are already proven to be practically superior in that its likelihood of implementation far exceeds that of my opponent's (the number of political systems that sport legal systems similar to that of my opponent are near nonexistent).
Justice systems are meant to satisfy society over the individual. My opponent assumes to know the victim would be thirsty for blood (eye for an eye). Again, my opponent takes his personal views and opinions far above that of even the victim. In many cases, victims of extreme criminal activity are sufficiently satisfied by the imprisonment or death of the criminal. Some families who have lost children to murder even go as far as trying to understand the criminal
Victims don't want vengeance to such a degree as is being advocated by my opponent. They just want to be able to continue their lives and live as normal people. Society's main concern should not be vengeance (as that is not the concern of the victim), rather, it should be the healing of the victim's emotional trauma. In a true-account narrative about kidnap-rape victim, Jaycee Lee DuGard, the author recounts to the reader about the 18 years Jaycee spent under kidnap (since childhood) and the traumatic crimes committed against her (several textual supplements were provided including Jaycee's journal that she was allowed to keep during captivity). In her narrative, she explicitly states that she does not hate her captor. Jaycee is currently working to comfort families of victims and to prevent such occurrences from happening (through appeal). My opponent assumes that all victims would hypothetically want vengeance. This has been proven to be untrue. To punish the criminals (what do we do with serial killers? kill them thirty times?) to the degree my opponent asks would not only be unnecessary, but also would inflict scarring images to those forced to view such proceedings. Current justice systems sufficiently punish victims in a way that satisfies society as a whole (and not an individual self-righteous person).
Now to address Saudi Arabia. Where does the statement that Saudi Arabia has the lowest crime rate stem from? Unsupported that cannot be proven fact until otherwise proven (factual document, source, report, etc.). If Saudi Arabia is such a great place, go live there. It has horrible human rights and inflicts harsh punishments for even peaceful dissent. There is no trial or due process, they detain people and punish them whenever they feel like it (people receive harsh physical punishment for posting articles that do not concur with Saudi Arabian views), internet critics crossing vague "red lines" face arrest, there is no freedom of speech, expression, or belief. They execute children for murder (that their children even commit murder exhibits the nation's moral dearth) and people for sorcery. Saudi Arabia's horrible conditions (despite its wealth of oil) give an insight to life under my opponent's justice system. Saudi Arabia's crime rate, in contrast to my opponent's statement, is phenomenally high. Since the smallest infraction is considered a crime, Saudi Arabia suffers from high crime rates under the standards of Saudi Arabian legal systems.
Instead of serving to deter crime, the legal system pro seeks to implement would lower standards in defining what crime actually is. EX: Bully the bullies.
I think it's only fair for me to also bring up a hypothetical scenario: Person A is particularly sensitive. A slight attributed to Person A by another person (Person B) harms Person A psychologically to a degree equal to that of mental traumatic torture (EX: killing family, burning house etc). If person A were particularly vengeful, under pro's contention, it would be within Person A's rights (if person A wishes it) to kill Person B's family. This is not justice, this is psychotic vengeance.
Another hole in pro's legal system: with such a frightening degree of punishment, no matter how remorseful a criminal may be, he/she would not be inclined to admit anything since your system would harshly deal punishment. The 10 witness testimony also fails in certain cases (EX1: rape victim is the sole testimony and the rapist denies, what now?)
(EX2: 10 people from an underground organization come out to testify falsely to frame person, you kill an innocent person.) Other legal systems are more meticulous in the trial process; innocent people are rarely punished by accident. The requirements to pinning guilt on a person are so few and so easily falsified, the type of error described above would occur more often, rendering the system impractical in stopping crime.
Error in pro's legal system: child rapists are 'raped' in return instead of put in prison. What next? The punished has satisfied the quota of punishment. Under pro's system, there is no further punishment for them. They'd be logically released into society again. Psychotic criminals may rape children, come back for self-butt rape, then go back to raping children, cycle repeats. How does pro know punishment has been effected at a sufficient level? Criminals can even put on a facade of suffering/pain. You will NEVER know. Face it, the system is imperfect.
Main points: Any legal system imposed on an unwilling people would overturn social order and cause either chaos or suffering (China, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union...)
Pro's system of punishment is widely opposed (the consensus being that it is horrific by those you've presented it to) Majority rules.
Pro's system is impractical.
Pro's system does not deter crime and allows criminals to continue practicing it.
Glatt, John. "Lost and Found". St. Martin's True Crime, September 28, 2010. Print.
My belief that torture is worse than murder is not based on my own opinion alone. Neither is my view that arson is worse than theft.
Torture is more damaging and makes the victims wish for death. TTorture is one of the most profound human rights abuses, taking a terrible toll on millions of individuals and their families. Rape, blows to the soles of the feet, suffocation in water, burns, electric shocks, sleep deprivation, shaking and beating are commonly used by torturers to break down an individual's personality. As terrible as the physical wounds are, the psychological and emotional scars are usually the most devastating and the most difficult to repair. Many torture survivors suffer recurring nightmares and flashbacks. They withdraw from family, school and work and feel a loss of trust. There are 105 States parties to the Convention against Torture: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, U.K., U.S.A, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Yugoslavia.
[This is a report form the BBC regarding what a woman went through, all are her own words, not mine]
They had guns, ropes, baton sticks.
'We want to kill her'
They said: "You are a prostitute of [MDC leader Morgan] Tsvangirai, so we are going to take this condom and put it on this gun and get it into you, because Tsvangirai is doing this to you and you enjoy having sex with him".
They put the gun inside me and they asked me if I was enjoying it.
I said: "It is painful."
They forced me to make noises as though I was having sex with a man.
When my brother heard that I was being assaulted, he came out from his house to my room and said: "What is happening?"
He was told to shut up and was beaten and made to get into the toilet.
They opened the taps and water was running all over his body and asked: "Why are you living with this MDC person here? We want to kill her."
They started beating me up.
They took the urine from my kid and said: "Drink it."
I first refused but the way they were beating me and they wanted to put the gun again, so I had to drink it.
After drinking it, they said they wanted to see the urine flowing.
I said: "I don't have any urine."
They said: "We know you have it. You have to do it now before we kill you."
So I had to do the urine standing.
They said: "We want to see it flowing by your feet."
So I did.
I am afraid of meeting them again. I don't know what they will do.
They have already killed me.
I have to carry on. I just want revenge.
I want you to notice three lines in what she recounts:
Line 1: "We want to kill her"
Line 2: "They have already killed me"
Line 3: "I have to carry on. I just want revenge."
Line one shows that the want to torture overcame the want to kill, why? Because it is so much more satisfying for a criminal to do. Because they want to cause pain, there is no pain in death, Perhaps in dying but not in death.
Line two shows that torture does effectively kill a person emotionally.
Line three shows that she does want revenge. In fact revenge is her very reason to 'carry on'.
As for arson, I would like to highlight the current punishments for arson on theft in the UK, a country with a political system almost opposite to mine (thus not having the influence of my views):
Arson: Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Life. (or 30+ years in the length of the sentence, because 'life' is not exactly a time framed sentence)
Theft has many forms:
Burglary: Aggravated burglary = 1-13 years' custody
Domestic Burglary = Community order – 6 years’ custody
Non-domestic burglary = Fine – 5 years’ custody
If the offence includes the threat or use of minimal force and removalIt is clear that Arson is considered worse than the forms of theft. OF course petty theft is EVEN LESS significant legally than armed robberies so needn't prove this.
As for Saudi Arabia: According to an official scale that Wikipedia uses the rate is only 1.0 in Saudi Arabia. This is the one just above a rate of 0.
For the rapist where the rapist denies and the witness is only the victim we use jail instead of my system for I shall quote the relevant condition whereby Jail is used instead: "If the accused has not been directly been seen as the only person who could have done the crime and is merely claimed to be the most likely form evidence that vaguely makes it seem as if no one else but them would have done it (for example, you don't know who raped the woman but the woman vaguely remembers a face and voice and it matches a man, with not other witnesses)." Now, this means that in such a case it is not clear whether or not the rapist is, for sure, the rapist or if the rape occurred thus we will revert to jail. In the case where you mention the mob of 10 blaming an innocent. I shall state the conditions relevant as to why we'd simply refer to prison for the innocent (unfortunate yes) but we'll be using prison instead of my system: "When concrete evidence to person is given, undeniable amount of videographic, photographic, audiographic evidence" this condition has been unmet, "When there is no ambiguity over the crime" since the person hasn't done the crime, there clearly would be extreme ambiguity involved. Also there is a condition for jail that is relevant here; (The one I mentioned before) In such a situation they clearly would not be the only one responsible for the crime. Thus Jail/prison would be used, not my system.
As for the serial killer, my system would merely revert to imitate their method of killing and only kill them once. In a situation where they killed the family of the person, we'd merely kill them in the most brutal of all the ways a person was killed (brutal in terms of the time from the beginning of the ordeal to the point of death and in terms of how the methods would cause pain. If each method was very different, we'll combine them in a terrifying hybrid ordeal whereby all methods of killing get combined into one monstrous killing mechanism.
"My belief that torture is worse than murder is not based on my own opinion alone. Neither is my view that arson is worse than theft."
and proceeds to support this statement by copying huge chunks of the UN's description of torture from his first source.
Whether or not pro believes torture is greater than murder (and vice verse) is not the point. The point is that the punishment quota based on pro's system of 'del' for crimes REQUIRES a judgment of crime committed and degree of crime that would be reciprocated. My opponent still does not account for criminal pain facades that could be put on to satisfy the quota of 'del' administered or the case made about taking rape punishment then going back to society to continue rape (who knows, psychopath rapists might even like the rape punishment and put on a facade of extreme pain, returning to society to continue raping children afterwards).
My opponent then proceeds to attempt breaking my argument that his revenge-based justice system would receive support from people who seek vengeance. Pro has specifically thrown out statements by a torture victim who explicitly states 'I Just want revenge' at the end of the interview. The cases I've presented on the topic of vengeance were relevant in that it presents cases of people who would most probably be in opposition of my opponent's justice system. It's likelihood of implementation and therefore practicality is further disproved. My opponent's case, however, is irrelevant. That the woman wants revenge says nothing about my opponent's justice system. How does my opponent dare presume to know the extent of revenge sought after by the victim? He cannot know. In many cases, victims only ask that their attacker be punished. They are usually sufficiently satisfied with either death sentence or imprisonment. Victims even pardon their violators. Either way, my opponent imposes his mindset into victims. They are not my opponent and my opponent is not them. My opponent's anomalous degree of vengeance/justice is exhibited by my opponent alone.
A point that must be made against pro's torture victim example is that these victims receive harsh treatment as part of a large-scale political violence. There are so many political factions (many aren't even registered) that Zimbabwe, the nation under which it all occurs, is a complete failure. Large organizations are the source of the crimes/criminals. The military might and economic strain required to put down these organizations is phenomenal. In this case, it would be complete political changes that would be more prudent instead of witch-hunts for vengeance. This is more a case pertaining to political upheaval than judiciary judgment (we are not debating this). Your example fails to establish any kind of correlation to your legal system.
Now for Saudi Arabia. My opponent's source for Saudi Arabia's crime rate ONLY pertains to intentional homicides. A nation with low intentional homicide rate IS NOT a country with low crime rate: homicide =/= crime in general. I cannot help but shake my head at my opponent's failure to better find/utilize resources correctly. Although Saudi Arabia has low crime rates under our standards of crime (theft to murder), the Saudi Arabian legal system punishes for not only the actions we consider to be crimes, but also for even the smallest hint of dissent. I remake my standing point that Saudi Arabia has the highest crime rate because even silly things like 'sorcery' is considered a crime under Saudi Arabian justice's STANDARD OF CRIME(you say anything against, you receive punishment, you don't pray, you receive punishment, you disobey, you receive punishment; this is all dealt through Saudi Arabia's legal system. Just because we do not agree that these actions are considered crimes, the corrupt brainwashing nation like Saudi Arabia DOES consider these crimes and they DO exact punishment for said crimes).
Pro's legal system contains many aspects of failure. The failures in the system are covered by imprisonment:
"Also there is a condition for jail that is relevant here; (The one I mentioned before) In such a situation they clearly would not be the only one responsible for the crime. Thus Jail/prison would be used, not my system."
"Now, this means that in such a case it is not clear whether or not the rapist is, for sure, the rapist or if the rape occurred thus we will revert to jail."
"we use jail instead of my system for I shall quote the relevant condition whereby Jail is used instead"
Despite my opponent's belief that his proposed legal system is better, he is unable to deny that the methods of other legal systems, such as imprisonment, are actually quite reasonable and practical.
Now to carry on with some of my original contentions.
Let me resurface this hypothetical scenario from my last argument:
Person A is particularly sensitive. A slight attributed to Person A by another person (Person B) harms Person A psychologically to a degree equal to that of mental traumatic torture (EX: killing family, burning house etc). If person A were particularly vengeful, under pro's contention, it would be within Person A's rights (if person A wishes it) to kill Person B's family. This is not justice, this is psychotic vengeance.
My opponent does not say anything in relation to this. Under his system, Person A would legally be allowed to have Person B (or Person B's family) killed to satisfy the quota of 'del' to match pain. Any sensible person would agree that this is stupidly wrong, yet my opponent's impractical system supports it.
Let me introduce another hypothetical situation: A woman hates a man and accuses the man of rape. She is the 'sole witness' and the man denies (rightfully) to having had raped her. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME CASE MY OPPONENT HIMSELF HAS WRITTEN FOR HIS LAW! My opponent explicitly states that this man would be imprisoned due to ambiguity.
My opponent's legal system contains so many holes that cannot be accounted for that it would be perilously impractical to implement in reality. It is so bad that my opponent cannot make his system anywhere practical without complete revision (new clauses/changes to the system cannot be added as it would change the system being promoted, making for a similar but completely different system for debate; the opponent would in essence concede the system he is currently arguing for). Current justice systems are better because they are more refined and practiced, perfected in a way that my opponent's legal system never will be. Current systems are not perfect, but they are well developed. In the case of the US, many laws are created/discarded and amendments are made, proposed and voted on by the people in an attempt to create something as good as possible. It's general consensus among many that legal systems such as that which my opponent proposes are not viable because they have already been practiced, viewed, discarded and dismissed (Hammurabi among others). Real application will in no way serve to be practical. Practicality of the system exists only to pro himself.
Before I begin the debate I just want to say that I stated in round 1 that my system uses prison, my system is not opposing prison altogether, imprisonment is an integrated part of my system and I dedicated several conditions to determine when to use prison instead of the 'eye for an eye' system.
This issue of "If person A were particularly vengeful, under pro's contention, it would be within Person A's rights (if person A wishes it) to kill Person B's family." is nonsense. My system in no way states that the victim is the one to decide the punishment ever. MY system has a judge decide the punishment (perhaps I didn't make this clear but I thought it would be clear that the vengeance is whatever the judge and jury have determined the criminal did and will replicate it to the criminal. Also I did address this in my round 3 debate where I stated "As for the serial killer, my system would merely revert to imitate their method of killing and only kill them once. In a situation where they killed the family of the person, we'd merely kill them in the most brutal of all the ways a person was killed (brutal in terms of the time from the beginning of the ordeal to the point of death and in terms of how the methods would cause pain. If each method was very different, we'll combine them in a terrifying hybrid ordeal whereby all methods of killing get combined into one monstrous killing mechanism." here is specifically explain what my system would do to a clearly convicted serial killer.
As for this 'rapist who enjoys being raped' nonsense I shall explain that my system will still work. If the rapist stuck his penis into the child's anus, then his penis girth and length to the child's anus size is a certain ratio. Now, although it seems I'm adding to the clause mentioned in round 1, I'm not I just couldn't possibly explain every possible scenario and how my system would apply to it. According to my system we wouldn't simply get a robotic dildo of equal size to the man's and rape him, we would use one of the size that is in exact ratio (this is linked to my condition of EXACT SAME PAIN AND DAMAGE that the rapist caused to the victim) and thus if he left eh child bleeding from the bum brutally, he himself (since most rapists are male I assume he's male) will receive such punishment. I don't really see how exactly a human being would enjoy being treated the way they treated their victims?? If they enjoy being submissive why would they enjoy being dominant, it's like saying that someone enjoys being controlled but also enjoys controlling doesn't this completely abolish the point of studying psychology altogether? Human sexuality is complex, yes, but everyone, unless asexual, has a preference sexually. If they display their sexuality through juvenile rape, clearly they get excited by this activity, not being the raped. You are suggesting a person with a self-contradictory sexual orientation and mindset, it's ridiculous to bring up an individual who isn't human since my system applies to a human society (don't argue that I didn't mention that because it was not needed to be mentioned, plus I did state that we are discussing humans as animals in my round 2 debate).
Now, since I have explained that because I revert to imprisonment when the rapist convicted in the situation of (only victim being witness and only rapist being convict) you seem to think I'm explaining why my system is bad. I am not. I am saying we only want to avenge victim's whose perpetrator we DEFINITELY (to almost 100% degree) know was the criminal. When there is huge ambiguity and we end up convicting them on likelihood as opposed to concrete evidence then we will use prison, since it would be horrifically worse to rape an innocent than to imprison them, if we use the fact that we see rape as a horrific crime in the first place. So, in the end, I embrace prison as a justifiable punishment when revenge can't be confirmed since we don't know for sure the criminal is the one.
The point with Saudi Arabia is that the crimes that have ridden most countries (not the funny ones that shariah law turns into crimes) are clearly extremely well managed and controlled (for example intentional homicide) due to the fear caused by the severely 'physical' punishment methods of Saudi Arabia. I used it as an example of how my system can prevent globally viewed crimes, not crimes to Islamic law alone.
If the victim doesn't want revenge, it's because they are too nice (probably why they were an easy target) and as I said my system is pure justice, it isn't mercy. If the victim wants a merciful vengeance the government shouldn't care. A governmental body and the police do not exist to serve victim's views on merciful punishment for their, a governmental body exists to control a society, if the best way to do this is to ignore what victims think is okay in their traumatised opinion then so be it. What you are saying is that the best justice system would be one where we listen to victims and do whatever they like to do. That's rubbish, that way all pedophilic rapists would probably get away since children don't truly grasp how wrong what was done to them is in the first place. Nowhere in my round 1 debate did I say my system punishes the perpetrator based on what the victim wants, I said we punish them based on what they DID to their victim(s). So your argument regarding victims not wanting revenge is irrelevant. If we have to displease victims for the sake of a superior justice system, superior in the sense that it makes people fear doing crime much more than other justice systems, then we shall happily displease victims for the sake of justice. If they beg up not to rape their rapist we will simply say justice is justice. We can't go wily nilly letting mad men off the hook simply because their victim pleads DON'T HURT HIM/HER! No, we must show them what they really did. If they slap their child, we slap them just as hard, if they raped someone, we will cause them the same terror and pain, if they tortured someone, we will certainly torture them.
The theory that Gandhi proposed that 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' and the mantra 'you can't fight fire with fire' is actually simple to oppose on a theoretical, and practical, point of view. If you take my eye and I take your eye and everyone does this one by one, it would actually end up with one person having an eye in the end since the other is too blind to get their eye. So actually an eye for an eye would make the whole world BUT ONE blind. However, we are humans, not robots. When we go to take out someone's eye, with the knowledge they'll take ours out too, we are far less likely to take out the eye in the first place, thus an eye for an eye as a POLICY makes the whole world's fear of blindness cause the whole world to NOT BE BLIND! And if you start blazing a flamethrower at me and I blaze one at you, the flames will actually burn us both, so yes, you can fight fire with fire. But just as the eye for an eye as a policy, if you know you will get burnt if you burn me you are FAR LESS LIKELY to ignite the flame in the first place so as a policy, fighting fire with fire causes no one to bother fighting with it in the first place. See what I'm getting at? Of course it's stupid to just kill and say killing is wrong, but if people know that if they et caught doing something bad to someone, it will get done to them then obviously they will fear doing it in the first place, it's human nature to feel fear in regards to pain.
In conclusion, my system is not the best at serving merciful punishments, it's not the best at being unhypocritical, nor the best at making the government seem friendly or caring. However, it is the best for the purpose for justice and the preservation of a harmonious community where everyone would rather die than rape a girl (because believe me, it WILL happen to them if they are caught).
Pain is never feared to the degree my opponent attributes until it is felt. I do not fear arthritis because I have not felt the pain it can cause, yet many describe it as mind-crushingly painful. Studies say eating certain foods will cause future harm to the body (fast food contains certain arthritis promoting elements). I don't fear this even though I know that its developmental probability is increased exponentially. I still eat fast-food. While this example may not be perfect, I believe it successfully communicates my point.
The fact that my opponent's system actually releases criminals after they've received punishment makes his system horribly incompetent. Rapists do not rape only children. Rapist can rape fully matured girls. The 'del' of physical pain in this case is much lower. How will your system account for the psychological pain of having lost purity/virginity. How does it account for the humiliation? Just butt-raping the rapist and throwing it back out into society is illogical (I don't think I have to explain this; it's quite obvious). Many of our society's crime are committed by the not quite psychologically fit individuals. A hypothetical 'rapist who enjoys being raped' is not very far fetched or silly as my opponent might think. People who are insane usually have a higher capacity for humiliation/pain.
Saudi Arabia only has lower intentional homicide rates because of its highly religious community. Muhammad himself, their most venerated figure second to Allah, is recorded to have spoken very explicitly about this issue. Saudi Arabia is the way it is because the Qu'ran (their 'bible') is the law. Click my source and you will see how similar the Qu'ran is to the Saudi Arabian laws described. Fear of pain is not factor in inhibiting crimes. Crime inhibition is largely caused by the hope of achieving a better afterlife. This nation cannot be used as an example because it is not the system but the extreme religious fervor that keeps the people from committing heinous crimes such as murder. Via the Saudi Arabian sample, unless my opponent wants to enforce some kind of quasi-islamic and already extremely popular religion into his system, the system fails horridly.
Saudi Arabia is only an exception because of its insane religious fervor. It's laws could never EVER be implemented if it were not for its dominant Islamic belief.
The key belief my opponent seems to harbor is that psychological fear of repercussion would place some sort of mental inhibition to keep the criminal-to-be from committing crimes. There is a huge fallacy to this train of thought. Current systems already administer rather harsh punishments such as death and imprisonment. My opponent is saying that ONLY his form of punishment will incur fear. This is not true. I fear prison (my opponent already describes it as a horrible place to be), and I fear death (especially death more than anything). The fear of death is a primal survival instinct key to nearly every single species on earth. Only psychotic people want to commit worse crimes because the punishment would be the same. If this is so, our society would see a large influx of murder because all atrocious crimes (rape, arson, blackmail, etc) would disappear in favor of murder.
My opponent says: "if you're going to get bullied in a horribly degrading place named prison you might as well go in for a legendary crime."
BY my opponent's logic, murder and torture are the only crimes in existence now because everyone thinks this way. This is not true. Rapists rape for sexual gratification. Murderers murder for many different reasons (monetary gain, vengeance, retaliation to oppression, etc.). Burglars, thieves and robbers burgle, steal and rob for monetary gain. They do not think of their crimes in terms of level of severity. Rather, they commit crimes for personal gain
A criminal obviously knows the legal repercussions of murder. This does not stop them from killing, stealing, burning or raping. Similarly, even a nation such as Saudi Arabia (which shares many key similarities to my opponent's system, especially in terms of eye-for-eye) exhibits murderers, rapers, arsonists and thieves. Murderers don't think about getting caught. Most believe they are invincible (as is the case of the kidnapper of Jay Cee DuGard; The kidnapper himself displays a feeling of "I can do everything and anything and get away with it", bragging about his invincibility to poor young Dugard) Look, there is a limit to everything. Students' test scores make for a very good example. A class of students take a test(factor out extra credit). Student A studies 15 hours in a week and receives full credit. Student B studies 50 hours and receives the same score. While it may seem logical that Student B receive more points for his efforts, there is no such thing as getting above 100%. In another scenario, student A studies for a minute while student B studies not at all. Both receive rock bottom zeroes. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a limit to the degree of punishment allowable. This is the sole reason why many nations do not incorporate anything like Hammurabi's or my opponent's code of law. My opponent assumes his code is practical only by laying out a certain train of logic that people hypothetically follow. Many criminals who commit crimes do not believe they will be caught and do not follow the logic my opponent claims they do. THe system will not be effective and thus is not practical. Not only is it impractical, it is very much immoral..
Through the reasoning I have posted in this round, I have logically proven that the degree of psychological inhibition my opponent believes to be in existence really exists only hypothetically. My opponent's 'logical argument' is not considered logical by any other person. Many people instinctively know it to be illogical but lack the ability to clarify this.
Before I bring my debate to an end, I shall like to just highlight how amusing my opponent's argument is.
I would just like to take you via his trail of thought to reach the conclusion he has reached:
I hope that in those 8 points whereby my opponent reaches his conclusion I have worded his views in a clear enough way to show the ironic lack of logic in his thought process. If you think that all 8 points make perfect sense and should be valid in order to each his conclusion, then I suppose you and I have different concepts of logic altogether but I hope somehow you see his arguments from my point of view and perhaps are as bemused by them as I.
Now I shall highlight some points which my opponent raises which actually support my system being dominant over current ones:
My system works because it isn't simply a justice system that punishes one for doing a crime. It is a system that makes people experience exactly how much suffering they caused. The essential difference between my system and ANY OTHER SYSTEM POSSIBLE (EVEN Hammurabi's Code) is that it is not a punishment system alone. All other system's have a standard system whereby all criminals of the same crime (theft, rape, murder) who commit the crime to a certain degree of violence with certain intentions get identical punishment's sentenced to them by a judge. My system is different entirely to this and disregards the need for 'intention', which is a purely subjective matter in the first place and thus cannot ever be measured objectively for purposes of justice. My system doesn't punish two murderers who both used a knife to kill a person or a certain gender and age the same way. If one caused her more pain and suffering by perhaps mutilating her genitals, while the other simply stabbed her, their punishments will not be the same, because their crime was not the same.
In essence, all publicly known systems currently in place and all systems that are known to have existed have a blind-spot in their ability to punish people in a just manner. The blind-spot is that they punish two people who commited crimes under the same label and same named manner of committing it EQUALLY despite the fact that they commited the crimes in an entirely different manner from one another. In other words, there is no clear distinction between crimes of equal style and manner whereby one was carried out by a different sequence of moves that perhaps caused far greater amounts of pain and agony than the other did. This is either NOT FAIR to the criminal who commited the crime in a more merciful manner or it is TOO LENIANT upon the criminal who did it in a worse manner OR BOTH AT ONCE. Thus, my system is the most just, it not only allows jail as an acceptable punishment for those under 15 (a globally regarded age where average humans have gained the ability to form opinions and live life relatively independently and maturely) the mentally retarded or insane (since it wouldn't be fair to punish a person who is seemingly completely unconsciously doing their crime), accidental crimes, non physical crimes, to criminals who are punished for assisting a crime without physically doing anything (perhaps I didn't make clear that even holding a girl during rape counts a a non bystander, I meant a purely non-physically involved criminal in the crime), anyone who was threatened to do the crime (thus had no choice) and any criminal who was convicted based on probability alone, no evidence in itself (we can't assert them to be the criminal base don this). Thus, my system only is brutal to the brutes themselves and is the best possible system to control human societies.
"A justice system is only valid if it isn't based on one person's views."
I never even implied this. The point about the views of this one person lacking supporters is made to show that others do not harbor the person's sense of justice. They're innate response is that this sense of justice is wrong and unjustified. It is my way of drawing from a large source of existing support and making it part of my contention. How do I know this support base exists?
Pro says in round 1:
"Most people who have known me in life have described me as a mad-man, a genius of the rarest kind, the next Hitler and a fool. Most names came before my system was suggested and after I told my justice system to people they have freaked out saying it's insanely wrong and unjustified."
fool (n.) - a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person
My opponent is a fool. The support base supplements this statement. My opponent has nearly zero credibility.
"The current system of imprisonment is not based on one's system and thus is valid."
The current system is valid not because it isn't based on my opponent's system, but because it has been refined and refurbished over and over again. It's has undergone centuries of practical application. The current system has more 'experience'. My opponent's system, which is based on hypothetical accounts and reasoning, is no match in comparison. The current system is more than valid, it is practically developed.
(Semantics: The current system is based on the views of many ones. My opponent seems to think that he is the only 'one' and that no other human being are 'one's. Groups are made of many ones, therefore, it is based on one's system depending on the 'one' you single out.)
"Pro's system is based on Pro's own views so thus is invalid."
Pro's system is not only invalid, it is impractical. The reason for impracticality, though, is not that it is based on pro's views. I've established several reasons for invalidity. How does my opponent miss every single one?
"A woman other than pro displays the urge to get revenge on men who brutally raped and tortured her."
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this supports your side of the debate.
"A criminal obviously knows the legal repercussions of murder. This does not stop them from killing, stealing, burning or raping." This is exactly the issue with the current system, it isn't terrifying enough to prevent someone from committing a crime such as murder."
I will attack this 'terror' system later in the round.
"error is the use of the phrase 'sole reason'"
I must address this. My opponent fails to argue against my contention about limitation (Receiving less than 0% or more than 100%). My point has not been addressed. Assaulting my diction error is like grasping at straws. It is pedantically insubstantial.
"My opponent's 'logical argument' is not considered logical by any other person. Many people instinctively know it to be illogical but lack the ability to clarify this. How can you possibly justify the assumption that not ANY OTHER PERSON THAN ME considers my argument logical. Also, you provided no evidence to support the invalid claim that many people instinctively know my idea to be illogical"
How do I know? Is my opponent serious? Let me re-re-post this statement from round 1:
"Most people who have known me in life have described me as a mad-man, a genius of the rarest kind, the next Hitler and a fool. Most names came before my system was suggested and after ->I told my justice system to people they have freaked out saying it's insanely wrong and unjustified."<-
Ask any of these people whether or not they think your system is logical. The standard reply would be: no.
(someone needs to teach me how to italicize or bold phrases/words)
"The blind-spot is that they punish two people who committed crimes under the same label and same named manner of committing it EQUALLY despite the fact that they committed the crimes in an entirely different manner from one another. "
My opponent contends that this is not fair. What gives him the authority to judge what is fair or not? (as established earlier, his credibility is near nonexistent) Notice that, on careful examination, my opponent's system only applies to the most atrocious crimes. The colossal efforts required to gain followers to the system coupled with lack of support would make its real application near impossible and therefore impractical. To introduce such a radical change, my opponent would have to rely on some kind of social upheaval. All this just to cover the 'unfairness' of the punishment given to the more heinous criminals. To destroy the established and well-practiced system to obtain results that only pertains to about 3% of all crime. Is the result worth the effort? It is like climbing a mountain to obtain something (a cup of water for example) that already exists at the ground level. It's impractical and stupid (no offense Mr. Pro :3)
'"I fear prison (my opponent already describes it as a horrible place to be), and I fear death (especially death more than anything). The fear of death is a primal survival instinct key to nearly every single species on Earth." Okay, so I'll just ignore that the fear of pain is an equally, if not more powerful, survival instinct that helps us control animals and disciplines humans."
As I have presented through my arthritis example, fear of pain is only abstract until after its experience/application. Was that example insufficient? Shall I provide more? Alright: Would you fear people if I told you some could be murderers? Would you fear people if I told you some commit horrific crimes? Would you fear the sun if I told you that the sun could cause excruciating pain? Would you fear snow if I give you detailed accounts of extreme frostbite (losing extremities)? Would you fear fire if I told you that it can elicit pain? Would you fear water if I told you it could drown you? Unless all criminals were agliophobic, the terror of pain which my opponent attributes to all criminals only exists in abstract.
My opponent fails to establish insurmountable logic/proof to support his claim that making people feel the exact same degree of suffering is better than imprisoning or killing.
My opponent fails to prove his contention stating that his system is more practical than all other systems in existence.
My opponent fails to disprove my contentions (and resorts to semantics, good job)
My opponent fails to provide evidence (or logical support) to his obviously extensive knowledge of criminal psychology (criminals will definitely think the way you want them to think :3)
My opponent fails to establish his theory under the light of practicality.
Before I bring this debate to a close, I would like to thank my opponent for the effort put into this debate. I respect that he put a great amount of time and thought into establishing this system, but I cannot accept this system as viable. I hope I was able to convince him of his erroneous logic and bring him towards acceptance.
(I added rape and murder and divided it by total overall crime)