judicial system needs reform

My opponent poses the question of which religion, The answer to this question is any religion, meaning the separation of church and state. Just a footnote as I see that it has very little to do with the validity of my claim, the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar, Yes even in the tora. If I need to validate that claim I can, I am assuming that it is not going to be objected to. Notice that my opponent does not place objection to my first point 1) Adultery is immoral, it is not illegal. The validation of this statement is enough to proves there is an enabling of people to legally commit immoral actions. The claim that my opponent has entered as to my second claim 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. I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another. All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us. This I can prove. When Hitler killed all those people the pain was felt by everyone, why, why did we even go fight. Because we knew killing people was wrong, lets replace people with babies. does that change the intent of the verb? What about if we change babies to unborn babies, well we are still killing, and killing is opposite of love. therefore immoral. Regardless of some religious or individual beliefs the meaning of two words is undeniable. Moving to my third point 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. I assure you that it is not illegal, I say this with certainty because it happened to me. I will say that if this child went into (and I emphasize) court, in front of a judge, It is illegal, however my statement did not mention court or judges, the mention of the statement is not fraud unless reported to a judiciary facility. councilors, not illegal, state departments not illegal, court illegal. To address the second part of his claim, and I quote from a judge in Tennessee. " a persons moral character has no place in this court room, my judgements are based on fact, and the fact is that you were accused." Had the accusers moral character been evaluated the court would have seen a woman that committed seven affairs in a five year marriage, a drug abuser, and a person with no work ethic, yet the court deemed that she deserved soul custody of 2 minor children based on an immoral lie. Even neglecting the fact that she was a drug abuser with no work ethic we have already determined the act of committing adultery validates my claim. On to my opponent next claim. 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 euthanasia 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. I will start with the first half of this claim, as for gay marriage, It is not a violation of the statement love on another as I have loved you. therefore not Immoral, weird maybe, not common maybe as well, but love is never immoral. Moving on to euthanasia, I will refer to the above statement where I explained the difference in love and killing, take that sentence and replace it with old person, the verb to kill still remains the same, in which case the act is immoral, however if one would to go about it the right way... IE. getting a legal documentation from the victim saying it was his will and he recommended no punishment, his will would have to be followed, I would recommend that paper be signed in front of an unbiased lawyer however. Next claim This would certainly be a conflict 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. I ask you, If a kid steals from you do you put him to death? this is why there are limits, maximum punishments, that fit the crime committed, either in time served, or by removal of the problem. and an unbiased judge appointed by the government to oversee the punishment requested by the victim, with the ability to overturn that request at his discretion, Should a 8 year old who goes into a store go to juvy? how bout the punishment being to work for the victim in the store for a day for no pay. Do you know that a United States Judge made the ruling years ago that a man would pay one dollar a week for life to the family members of the man he accidentally killed in an auto wreck. is that unfair, or should he have gone to jail. 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 the street. Punishments are decided by judges because they have training in the law and are more qualified to make that kind of decision. What makes a Judge smarter than you when it comes to what should happen? Maybe you feel that the teenagers crime doesn't deserve a life sentence in jail, but you can't tell a judge that. the above statement is similar to saying that we can not decide for ourselves if we want an apple, orange, or banana for breakfast. Are you saying that a person isn't capable of knowing a punishment between nothing and a loss of a hand. and isn't capable of making a decision of what should happen. 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. Is a man with no hands going to steal? no, thefts down. is a drug dealer with no fingers going to do drugs, no, drugs down. Is a man who runs from the law that has no more legs going to commit any more crimes, not without a wheelchair, and he probably won't get too far. Case proven. 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 unjustness of these awful punishments which my opponent is advocating. The contest to this claim validates this claim and the last one based on the googled statistics of 56 percent of all violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders the last claim states nothing about the ability to make a punishment it just shows a democratic judicial system based on checks and balances between a judge and victim, where as my opponent admitted the claim of closure. Your rebuttal