Punitive Justice is Never Justified

My opponent has failed to respond to a number of my points. 1. The contender has failed to respond to the idea that since crime is predicted to happen in certain areas, punishment doesn't make sense. 2. The contender has failed to respond to my second point that the punitive system is both cruel and ineffective, although, it may be that my point was not clear as I didn't make my opponent aware of what negative reinforcement means. Now that I have clarified, I look forward to my opponent's renewed answer. 3. The contender has failed to respond to the fact that crime is behavior and so punishment is ineffective at changing it, and finally: 4. The contender has failed to respond to the fact that Norway's soft on crime approach appears to be effective as we can see by their lower crime and recidivism rates. Punishment is not the same as negative reinforcement. An example of negative reinforcement would be if X was doing something painful to Y until Y pushed a button when X would stop the pain. Negative reinforcement is "punishment" until the behavior changes then the reward is no more punishment. Positive reinforcement is when X gives Y a treat for pressing the button. Punishment is when X does something painful to Y when Y stops pressing the button. Punishment just leads Y to press the button while X is watching, it doesn't make Y actually continue pressing the button. The intended function of punishment is not in question. I think we both agree that punishment is there for the purpose of stopping crime. We differ on whether or not it is justified and whether or not it works. I have shown that it doesn't work. This along with the other reasons I've given show that it is not justified. "if this mechanism are not there, chances are that there would be no control over crime.the society will be a perfect hellhouse." This is a perfect example of total speculation. My opponent has given no reason to believe that society would be "a perfect hellhouse". It is also demonstrably false. It is an absolute statement which the existence of Norway as a non "hellhouse" disproves. I would like to remind my opponent that I have not suggested leaving criminals in society where they could hurt someone, I have just suggested that we don't look at where we put them as a punishment. It makes more sense to change our prisons to therapy centers. I disagree that all crime is not psychological. All behavior is psychological. All crime is deviant behavior, so all crime is psychological. It is my belief that their own wish to commit crime is evidence of their need for therapy, not evidence of their need to be punished. I direct my opponent's attention to Norway again. My opponent engages in speculation for a second time with the statement ""not getting something when we want it".if we solve this problem, there will be no crime anymore." There is no evidence that crime will no longer exist if all wants are satisfied. As Alfred says in "The Dark Knight", "Some men just want to watch the world burn." If we ignore the speculation my opponent uses in that final paragraph, the conclusion is still not sound. It is the argument that "if we satisfy all wants, crime will stop, therefore elimination of punishment is not justified." I don't think anyone would agree that "satisfy all wants" is equal to "punish". I look forward to the contender's rebuttal.