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

Thank you CiRro for hosting this interesting topic, First off, I must ask my opponent to clarify his resolution. He says "Corporal Punishment is a reasonably adequate and just punishment for certain crimes." He defined reasonable as "fair or proportional". I must ask him to define what FAIR, PROPORTIONAL, and "SUFFICIENT" (in his words). 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. ii.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. 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. 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. This is a clear precedent against corporal punishment on the 8th amendment: "In Hudson v McMillian (1992) the Court considered whether the beating by prison guards of a handcuffed inmate at Louisiana's Angola prison violated the inmate's Eighth Amendment rights. Voting 7 to 2, the Court found a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause even though the inmate suffered no permanent injuries or injuries that required hospitalization." (http://www.law.umkc.edu...) Although this may not be the corporal punishment advocated by my opponent, it is certainly analogous to infliction of physical pain on a prisoner. 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. My arguments against: First, Although the crimes my opponents mentioned certainly deserved to be punished, punishment doled out by the infliction of physical pain undermines the moral foundation of society. If a society is willing to inflict physical pain in lieu of prison time or the often painless death penalty, the society signals the tacit acceptance of physical pain in its foundations. Soon, the infliction of physical pain may be widespread in society (i.e if the police can whip prisoners, why can't I whip my wife?), undermining not only law and order, but also the all-important morals of a society. 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). 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. 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 Thank you ladies and gentlemen for reading this