R: Corporal Punishment is a reasonably adequate punishment for certain crimes.

"My opponent claims that rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism do not cause death, and thus does not deserve a death sentence. However, this form of "an eye for an eye" judicial system does not hold up because of the intangible psychological effect involved. The main purpose of the mentioned crimes are to inspire FEAR in the victim, and this intangible (and yes, perhaps subjective) effect of the mentioned crimes must be taken into account." --> The adverse effects are taken into account. However jsut because someone might be afraid doesn't mean that a person deserves death as a punishment. Corporal punishment would be an adequate punishment for this. I will show how my opponents reasoning is flawed. E.g. Someone robs a house and is caught. However, the person in the house is afraid to be in his/her house again, because he/she does not want to be robbed. Does this fear mean that the robber deserves death? Obviously not. Just because fear may happen to a person doesn't mean that another person deserves death. "If proportionality is not legal equivalence, then why am I wrong in advocating the death penalty for these criminals? If you do not demand "an eye for an eye", why can we not go above and account for intangible costs and deal them the death penalty? The death penalty is the greatest punishment that we can deal out, and in the cases of the despicable acts of rape, kidnapping, and attempted terrorism, the death penalty is justified (and has already been embraced by societies around the world)" --> We can argue proportionality vs. legal equivalence all day. however this misses the point. You have yet to explain why in certain cases corporal punishment is not justified. You are just saying that we can use the death penalty if it warrants. Just because option, according to you, may be justified doesn't automatically make corporal punishment unjustified. "Precisely, how is corporal punishment (i.e flogging, whipping ect) not harsh? Can we claim that it is the actually PLEASANT to be whipped and flogged? I think not. It is clearly intuitive that there is at least some harshness to the whipping or flogging of criminals." --> you miss the point. According to Beccaria, a punishment is harsh if it exceeds the punishment due. Punishments are not meant to be kind, they are meant to be harsh. You miss the point Beccaria is making. A punishment must be due, not exceeding the fairness of it. "As to my citations for the prison guard beatings, is it not PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT with the intention of PUNISHMENT/RETRIBUTION? So what exactly distinguishes from the corporal punishment except it is not carried out in a regulated place. The use of physical violence in this case is clearly forbidden, and thus should be used as a precedent against the use of PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT (aka corporal punishment)." --> Ok, then according to you the death penalty is unjustified, and you continually use that point. Also, labor would be unjustified because it can create physical pain on the body. "But is not my opponent argument precisely that the mass-killers and all the perhaps mentally unstable and dangerous people in society should be given corporal punishment in order to reduce prison sentences?" --> This is where you misunderstand my case. I am not abolishing all punishments to be replaced by corporal punishment. The key word is warrants. A mass-murderer has killed so he deserves the death penalty. I said if it WARRANTS they could reduce sentences and use corporal punishment. "Furthermore, my opponent claims that it will serve as better deterrence; however, my opponent has not provided concrete proof of it (CITED STUDY FROM A SCIENCE JOURNAL). Since my opponent has the burden of proof, his warrentless assertion must be discounted" --> If I remember correctly, I made a link between other countries that use corporal punishment compared to the US. Since deterrence cannot be proven 100%, we must use comparative arguments. "My point is not that society should not punish, we should not use anachronistic methods of inflicting intense PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT in order to remedy crime. As a highly developed civilization, our morals dictate that we use the most reasonable and painless methods of punishment while retaining deterrence and other consequences of punishment at an acceptable level. The infliction of pain undermines the moralistic foundations of a society. If my government is actively beating people, what's to stop them from torturing us later? Perhaps we are restricting rights when we send criminals to jail, but we're violating not only their HUMAN RIGHT (as opposed to civil right) and SOCIETY'S ACCEPTED MORALS in order to deal punishment to those who might otherwise not need them. We need to restrict civil liberties of people in jail because their actions have justified that, but we have no right to invade human rights." --> Punishments and morality are incoherent. All punishments are in some way immoral. It is immoral to kill some, it is immoral to take someone out of society and restrict their freedoms (jail). Thus, your morality point is dropped on the fact you are trying to make to opposite ideas coherent. Secondly, we're going down a slippery slope of government violating our civil liberties. If the government can actively use physical punishment against criminals, what's to stop it from abusing this power or spreading it for the general populace? NOTHING. If we do allow corporal punishment, the fundamental civil liberties guaranteed to us by the bill of rights will be severely compromised. --> Nothing stops them now. They could easily use physical punishment on us without making corporal punishment legal. Furthermore, what makes the government not take everyone into jail, but we have a jail system. Your punishment has no real link to the resolution. "Thirdly, my opponent claims that corporal punishment would show proportionality. Why is it that the current system does not accurately serve PROPORTIONALITY, apart from the very subjective argument that the crimes do not fit the punishment? The definition you provided for proportionaltiy could very well include the death penalty under its wings, making any discussion moot." --> As I said before, I am not taking away the DP all together. I am arguing that certain crimes and circumstances deserve a punishment in between 2 extremes. I.e. jail and the death penalty. Furthermore, it helps judicial discretion on the judges part. [Voting Issues] 1. My opponent has not negated the given resolution. All his points and examples explain why corporal punishment may not be the best system, but he doesn't explain how it is not a just punishment. 2. It is clear that corporal punishment is a justified when it is warranted. For these reasons I urge an affirmation.