judicial system needs reform

A) Removing religion from the United States Judicial system enables people to legally commit immoral acts. Removing which religion? Judaism, Islam, Paganism, Pastafarianism, Rastafarianism, Deism, Christianity? 1. ) Adultery is immoral, It is not illegal. 2. ) Abortion is immoral, It is not illegal. Why is abortion immoral. You have not backed up this claim and as such it may be discarded. Also, how would introducing religion into the judicial system make abortion illegal as some people of all faiths agree and disagree on abortion. 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. First, this is fraud and is illegal. Second, why would it be legal due to a lack of religion and how would introducing religion stop it? B. All decisions in every court case should be decided based on a moral law that states love one another. "A new commandment I give unto you, love one another; as I have loved you, love one another. " Jesus (John 13.34 NKJ) My opponent believes all court decisions should be based off this one statement. But how does this help to decide on issues such as gay marriage and civil unions where the people seeking marriage certainly love each other. Or what about euthenasia where people on both sides of the issue might love the person in question. The person against believes the person has the right to life and the person for believes the other has the right not to suffer. 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. "The victim would choose the punishment, if the victim was no longer alive the victims family would be responsible for that decision. " This would certainly be a confict of interest as the victim or the victim's family would be the one hurt by the crime and as such would not be able to come to an objective decision about what punishment is deserving. Also, a regular person who was the victim of a crime has no more legal expertise to decide what punishment is suitable for an offender then another person off te street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision. My opponent ends by listing some alleged pros that would come about if his system were to be adopted by the American judicial system. 1 jails and prisons would thin in population, providing more money for the taxpayers that fund them due to alternate forms of punishment. My opponent has not shown why adopting this system over the current system would result in less arrests and less incarcerations. Until my opponent can show that this would happen, this 'pro' may be discarded. 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. I will not contest that possibly if such draconian measures as my opponent is advocating would be put in place, repeat offenses might happen less often, but that does not excuse the injusticeness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating. 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. Just because the victim might get more closure does not mean that the victim is qualified to make an objective decision as to the punishment of a criminal. Pro's contentions have been negated.