A New Radical Justice System

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: A justice system is only valid if it isn't based on one person's views. The current system of imprisonment is not based on one's system and thus is valid. Pro's system is based on Pro's own views so thus is invalid. A woman other than pro displays the urge to get revenge on men who brutally raped and tortured her. Since the woman was attacked in Zimbabwe, and since Zimbabwe has many political factions, the nation is a failure and thus the woman's opinion is invalid to use in pro's debate. Saudi Arabia's law is based on Islam, which currently has 1,570,000,000 – 1,650,000,000 followers[1], but because it is based on Islam and pro doesn't use religion in his system, he is now disallowed to prove that he is not the only one to support brutal punishment in order to get a crime such as intentional homicide down to a rate of 1.0 (the second lowest rate held globally).[2] "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." So, because pro will use a far harsher and more terrifying punishment to instigate fear than imprisonment, this is a flaw to his system. "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. 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: "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. "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." First error is that I am not reinventing a code of law, I am creating a system of justice based on presently held codes of law. Second error is the use of the phrase 'sole reason'. I shall define sole in the adjective form[3]: beingtheonlyone;only. If my opponent states that the sole, meaning only, reason for my system not being used is that there is a limit to the degree of punishment allowable then he is stating that all the other reasons he has suggested are suddenly useless, since the sole reason is that, there is no other reason therefore. The third error made is the use of the word allowable. The error is that punishments are allowed or disallowed by the government in the first place, and since my system would be run by a governmental body, it is thus allowable since they are the ones who make any punishment allowable in the first place. "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, the best part is my opponent's admittance to being unable to clarify it immediately after stating is as a justified point! 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. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...