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

My own definitions (since that's what he asked for) Fair: giving each their due. Proportional: in likeness to. Sufficient: not extreme but not to easy "Contention I: Corporal Punishment is a reasonable punishment. i.My opponent claims that the 3 crimes (rape, murder, attempted terrorism) do not deserve the death penalty. However, this argument is not true. My opponent later cites Beccaria's "The punishment must for the crime". For such horrendous crimes my opponent has mentioned, it is intuitive that the death penalty (or otherwise strongest possible punishment) is justified for the three crimes my opponent mentioned. The psychological and physical damage done by rape, murder, and terrorism clearly outweighs the death of the perpetrator (and thus is a fitting punishment." --> First, I claimed the three as: Rape, KIDNAPPING, and attempted terrorism. He claims that these 3 that I mentioned coincide with "The punishment must fit the crime. I have 2 response: 1. No crime listed above results in death. The 3 I list are implied that it did not result in another crime, i.e. murder. Therefore, the death penalty would be too extreme of a punishment. 2. Let's say that one of these crimes did result in death. I am not advocating taking away the death penalty totally. If it was necessary then it should be up to the discretion of the court system. All I am arguing is that for certain crimes, just jail is not enough, but the death penalty goes to far. "Secondly, my opponents claim that corporal punishment opens up for interim punishment is not inherent in today's society. The flexibility of prison years allows the government to pursue interim punishment reasonable for the crime." --> My opponent affirms right here. "The flexibility of prison years allows the government to pursue interim punishment reasonable for the crime." Essentially, if the court system believes that a crime warrants corporal punishment as an interim punishment, then they would do so. Essentially, an interim punishment is one that is worked in relation with the jail system. I.e. during jail time they would receive a corporal punishment once a week. (For argument's sake) "Contention II: Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy My opponent claims that corporal punishment decreases actual crime rates. First, I must demand citations (papers) to support this claim. Secondly, this is a classic case of Post Hoc Ergo Propter hoc fallacy. Correlation does not mean causation. One must question the other influences present in countries my opponent mentioned. One possible influence is better police forces or anti-gun ownership laws ect… Such confounding variables undermine my opponent claim of causation." --> First off I cited a source. He is open to look if he wishes. Secondly, I clearly state in my point that if deterrence is indeed true, and it does work, then it is a good secondary outcome. It is not necessary to affirm, but it is a good method to help protect society. "Contention III: The 8th amendment may have been founded on the premise of "the crime fits of punishment". Furthermore, it also forbids harsh and unnecessary punishment. It is clearly evident that corporal punishment can be construed as harsh and unnecessary punishment." --> The key word is construed. Essentially, it is an opinion. Since the harshness of a punishment is subjective, we must look at Beccaria's proportionality part of the 8th Amendment. Link ym contention 1 to this "Although this may not be the corporal punishment advocated by my opponent, it is certainly analogous to infliction of physical pain on a prisoner" --> As is evident by the case presented, the force was one produced out of personal want to hurt another person. It was not intended as a means for punishment. Essentially, it was a vigilante (so to speak) use of force. Corporal Punishment would be overlooked by the justice system and the jail system. It would be administered proportionality in deal with the previous crime committed. "Contention IV: Although our prisons may be crowded, my opponent has given no evidence in support of the deterrence of corporal punishment. For all we know, the reduced prison times may lead to the release of very dangerous criminals in our streets. Jails serve to keep dangerous members of society from mainstream society as well as a deterrence/punishment role. Releasing them early because they have suffered corporal punishment is antithetical to the first purpose. The economic costs of releasing known criminals (i.e murderers, rapists, terrorists) into the streets far outweighs the amount of money saved by the government in prison-keeping fees. Not only are economic costs incurred by releasing such prisoners, other intangible social costs (i.e higher crime rates, can't go out during the night ect) also result from releasing more prisoners." --> As is clear from my point, we would have less sentences with corporal punishment if it warrant. Obviously, we would not let a mass-killer out of jail. Furthermore, the use of corporal punishment would send a stronger message of just retribution for crimes as posed above. It would be much more effective then: "Your going to jail." (Oh God, I'm so scared. Recreation time, meals included. I'm getting a free ride by tax payers. I don't know how I can deal with it.) I'll refute his own case Point I Ok essentially the whole idea behind this argument is that we as a society can't condone physical punishment on a criminal. Ok, I have 2 responses: 1. Ok, then why is it ok for us to restrict liberties when we send them into jail. For a society, according to you, should be above this. We wouldn't want to condone taking away given liberties. Furthermore, the death penalty is not painless as you so mention. For about 1 minute before you die, you go through shock and immense pain. (This is lethal injection) Basically, your point means that a society should not punish. 2. You will say that physical punishment is different. It doesn't matter. If the court decides that a criminal warrants such punishment, then it is used to achieve justice. According to Rawls, justice is foremost in an institution and society. We would be more of a society if we act out of justice. "Secondly, the acceptance of corporal punishment would signal that the society no longer views corporal punishment by its members as illegal (i.e I can beat my wife.) --> This is stupid. Do people go around murdering because the government implements the death penalty. Do people kidnapping because the government puts people in jail. No. It is the exact opposite. People do not wish to have negativity brought upon them. Therefore, they will refrain from such actions. I.e. deterrence. "Thirdly, my opponent argues that "the punishment must fit the crime". Does he advocate that we should rape, murder, or attempt terrorism on the perpetrators. Basically my opponent is arguing for a weaker form of "an eye for an eye". There are numerous arguments against this moral and judicial philosophy that I could mention later if my opponent so obliges." --> Proportionality is not legal equivalence. We should not rape because someone rapes. This is where corporal punishment has a plus. It is used as a punishment that needs harsher means but is not equivalent, or death. Having only jail shows that we as a society do not condemn crime as much as we ought to. Having corporal punishment furthers proportionality and wanes us off of legal equivalence. Turn this argument against my opponent. "In conclusion, since my opponent has not shown (with proof/studies) that corporal punishment actually serves a significant deterrent against crimes or that corporal punishment" --> He didnt' finish the sentence. However, the resolution is asking for fairness and proportionality. Deterrence is not necessary for that. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.