judicial system needs reform

Thank you for responding so quickly. I will start this debate with my first claim. A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. 1.) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal. 2.) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal. 3.) A parent coaching a child into telling a state agency that their other parent committed the crime of molestation is immoral, yet it is also not illegal. I can list more examples but it is really not completely necessary to prove my point. returning to 1) 100 years ago a woman or a man was stoned for the commitment of adultery 2) abortion was illegal until 1973. 3) http://www.nolanchart.com... I refer to this because it is just to large to summarize. These are just 3 examples of an ever growing problem with the judicial system, regarding a lack in religious morals. I will refer to religious morals later in this discussion. b. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. I worded this phrase this way for a specific reason. I refer to religious moral law.. I am not talking the ten commandments, I am talking the only commandment given to us in the bible by Jesus himself. Let me clarify, I by no means trying to turn this into a religious debate, I just find that this particular commandment is the basis for peace and harmony between all humans. I quote " A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another." Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ) This statement has an amazing moral code written in it. For if I love you as Jesus loved you, and you loved me as Jesus loved you, there would be a strive towards treating people better in general. Further, Making this statement the basis for the law would make the above immoral actions illegal. For a violation of that statement would mean an immorality. c.If the crime violates that statement then it is punishable. The punishment would have a maximum IE. Stealing maximum punishment would be the loss of a hand. With the victim deciding the punishment that suits him, approved by the judge. A set of maximum punishments for crimes would have to be made, but I recommend examples close to the above example, now here's where the cool part comes in. The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision. Assuming that the moral code behind the law states to love one another and people follow this the punishments should never be the extreme, maybe under rare occasions would this happen. However it can be assumed that the maximum punishment would be less than the current. The judge would then be responsible for determining if the punishment requested falls within the lines of nothing and maximum based on discretion and the above moral code. I now move to the pros of this situation as apposed to today's system 1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them due to alternate forms of punishment. 2 there would be less repeat serious crimes, let me explain, imagine a repeat offender who steals.. Maybe the first time he gets a light punishment, then he does it again and the victim chooses a removal of his hand, lets just say, unless he trains a monkey to steal he will only do it twice. Not only that, the family of that person would be responsible for the care of that person who has no arms. Imagine the families response, that would be enough to deter many people. Or imagine a guy who violently rapes a woman, his punishment is a loss of his manhood, he will never commit that crime again. 3 It follows the system currently in place in our government with a check and balance system between the victim and the court. The victims would have more closure knowing that they had a say in how the situation was handled. I now turn this over to you.