A New Radical Justice System

My opponent says: "My belief that torture is worse than murder is not based on my own opinion alone. Neither is my view that arson is worse than theft." and proceeds to support this statement by copying huge chunks of the UN's description of torture from his first source. Whether or not pro believes torture is greater than murder (and vice verse) is not the point. The point is that the punishment quota based on pro's system of 'del' for crimes REQUIRES a judgment of crime committed and degree of crime that would be reciprocated. My opponent still does not account for criminal pain facades that could be put on to satisfy the quota of 'del' administered or the case made about taking rape punishment then going back to society to continue rape (who knows, psychopath rapists might even like the rape punishment and put on a facade of extreme pain, returning to society to continue raping children afterwards). My opponent then proceeds to attempt breaking my argument that his revenge-based justice system would receive support from people who seek vengeance. Pro has specifically thrown out statements by a torture victim who explicitly states 'I Just want revenge' at the end of the interview. The cases I've presented on the topic of vengeance were relevant in that it presents cases of people who would most probably be in opposition of my opponent's justice system. It's likelihood of implementation and therefore practicality is further disproved. My opponent's case, however, is irrelevant. That the woman wants revenge says nothing about my opponent's justice system. How does my opponent dare presume to know the extent of revenge sought after by the victim? He cannot know. In many cases, victims only ask that their attacker be punished. They are usually sufficiently satisfied with either death sentence or imprisonment. Victims even pardon their violators. Either way, my opponent imposes his mindset into victims. They are not my opponent and my opponent is not them. My opponent's anomalous degree of vengeance/justice is exhibited by my opponent alone. A point that must be made against pro's torture victim example is that these victims receive harsh treatment as part of a large-scale political violence. There are so many political factions (many aren't even registered) that Zimbabwe, the nation under which it all occurs, is a complete failure. Large organizations are the source of the crimes/criminals. The military might and economic strain required to put down these organizations is phenomenal. In this case, it would be complete political changes that would be more prudent instead of witch-hunts for vengeance. This is more a case pertaining to political upheaval than judiciary judgment (we are not debating this). Your example fails to establish any kind of correlation to your legal system. Now for Saudi Arabia. My opponent's source for Saudi Arabia's crime rate ONLY pertains to intentional homicides. A nation with low intentional homicide rate IS NOT a country with low crime rate: homicide =/= crime in general. I cannot help but shake my head at my opponent's failure to better find/utilize resources correctly. Although Saudi Arabia has low crime rates under our standards of crime (theft to murder), the Saudi Arabian legal system punishes for not only the actions we consider to be crimes, but also for even the smallest hint of dissent. I remake my standing point that Saudi Arabia has the highest crime rate because even silly things like 'sorcery' is considered a crime under Saudi Arabian justice's STANDARD OF CRIME(you say anything against, you receive punishment, you don't pray, you receive punishment, you disobey, you receive punishment; this is all dealt through Saudi Arabia's legal system. Just because we do not agree that these actions are considered crimes, the corrupt brainwashing nation like Saudi Arabia DOES consider these crimes and they DO exact punishment for said crimes). Pro's legal system contains many aspects of failure. The failures in the system are covered by imprisonment: "Also there is a condition for jail that is relevant here; (The one I mentioned before) In such a situation they clearly would not be the only one responsible for the crime. Thus Jail/prison would be used, not my system." "Now, this means that in such a case it is not clear whether or not the rapist is, for sure, the rapist or if the rape occurred thus we will revert to jail." "we use jail instead of my system for I shall quote the relevant condition whereby Jail is used instead" Despite my opponent's belief that his proposed legal system is better, he is unable to deny that the methods of other legal systems, such as imprisonment, are actually quite reasonable and practical. Now to carry on with some of my original contentions. Let me resurface this hypothetical scenario from my last argument: Person A is particularly sensitive. A slight attributed to Person A by another person (Person B) harms Person A psychologically to a degree equal to that of mental traumatic torture (EX: killing family, burning house etc). If person A were particularly vengeful, under pro's contention, it would be within Person A's rights (if person A wishes it) to kill Person B's family. This is not justice, this is psychotic vengeance. My opponent does not say anything in relation to this. Under his system, Person A would legally be allowed to have Person B (or Person B's family) killed to satisfy the quota of 'del' to match pain. Any sensible person would agree that this is stupidly wrong, yet my opponent's impractical system supports it. Let me introduce another hypothetical situation: A woman hates a man and accuses the man of rape. She is the 'sole witness' and the man denies (rightfully) to having had raped her. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME CASE MY OPPONENT HIMSELF HAS WRITTEN FOR HIS LAW! My opponent explicitly states that this man would be imprisoned due to ambiguity. My opponent's legal system contains so many holes that cannot be accounted for that it would be perilously impractical to implement in reality. It is so bad that my opponent cannot make his system anywhere practical without complete revision (new clauses/changes to the system cannot be added as it would change the system being promoted, making for a similar but completely different system for debate; the opponent would in essence concede the system he is currently arguing for). Current justice systems are better because they are more refined and practiced, perfected in a way that my opponent's legal system never will be. Current systems are not perfect, but they are well developed. In the case of the US, many laws are created/discarded and amendments are made, proposed and voted on by the people in an attempt to create something as good as possible. It's general consensus among many that legal systems such as that which my opponent proposes are not viable because they have already been practiced, viewed, discarded and dismissed (Hammurabi among others). Real application will in no way serve to be practical. Practicality of the system exists only to pro himself. http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...