A New Radical Justice System

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).