"Rape Penalty"

Thanks for the quick reply thett3. ==What does the resolution mean?== My opponent is essentially trying to argue in his previous round that he merely needs to prove the validity of his if-then statement, meaning he can assume the "if" is true, i.e. that the rape penalty has 100% deterrence. However, when I accepted the debate, this is not what I thought he meant, since as debaters we are asked to prove conclusions, not test the validity of logic statements (unless otherwise specified). If the resolution said "the following statement is logically sound: ‘if A then B,'" then the debate would be about logical validity, but otherwise, it's usually implied that we're proving a conclusion. So my opponent should have to prove his conclusion – that the rape penalty is a just punishment, which means he should also have to prove that it can be a 100% deterrent. Otherwise, the logic statement is useless because its condition will never be met. If the resolution were "if we can create cold fusion power plants in the next 20 years, then the worst effects of climate change will be prevented," most debaters would think that it is valid to negate this by saying that cold fusion will not be viable within the next 20 years, but my opponent's tactic would be to say that we have to assume the first part is true to test the validity of the logic statement. If this is how he wanted to debate, he should have specified because that was really unclear. To show why this makes no sense, let me form the contrapositive of his logic statement. [For the statement "if A then B," the contrapositive, which is supposed to be the same logically equivalent statement, would be "if NOT B, then NOT A."] So for this if-then statement, the contrapositive is "if the rape penalty is unjust, then it is not a perfect deterrent." Therefore, supposedly, by arguing that the rape penalty is unjust, I'm merely affirming the resolution by meeting the condition of the if statement. This makes no sense. However, in the spirit of debate, I'll also offer additional moral systems to show how even 100% deterrence is not a sufficient reason to show that the rape penalty is just. ==Responding to my opponent's case from the previous round== My opponent cites statistics on the large number of unreported rapes, supposedly to show that if the rape penalty were a perfect deterrent, then none of these unreported rapes would occur. However, my opponent never proves that the rape penalty is a perfect deterrent, and I would assert that it is not. We have to remember that deterrence is a function of (the probability of getting caught) times (the magnitude of the punishment). For 100% deterrence, either the probability of getting caught is 100% and the magnitude of punishment is large enough to prevent everyone from committing the crime OR the probability of getting caught is non-zero and the magnitude of punishment is infinite. 1. Infinite magnitude Firstly, my opponent never answers my argument that some rapists would enjoy being raped (especially if it is by a woman), so the rape penalty is an incentive, not a disincentive for them. In addition, even death is not an infinite punishment, since people still commit crime even in death penalty states. Communist regimes would often kill a person's entire family for treason because the threat of individual death was not a sufficient deterrent. 2. 100% probability In my opponent's hypothetical world, which he assumed into existence, where the rape penalty has 100% deterrence, my opponent has also assumed into existence a perfect police force and perfect victim reporting systems where every rapist would get caught. The perfect police system my opponent assumes is what solves the problem, not the rape penalty. In fact, if the rape penalty would not be a sufficient deterrent for some, even with 100% probability of getting caught, then under utilitarianism a harsher punishment, like death, would be better as a deterrent. Under utilitarianism, if the death penalty creates more deterrence, it would be deemed moral and the rape penalty immoral, since it does not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Infinitely Regression Immanuel Kant created the Categorical Imperative to show that we should not use humans as a means to an end, which is one of the foundations of our 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the retributive theory of our justice system (that criminals should get their just desserts, but should not be punished for MORE than the crime they committed). If deterrence is the ONLY factor we look to in the justice system, we would conclude that the death penalty for every crime, even petty theft, would be moral. We also conclude that killing a rapists entire family going back 5 generations (approximately 100 people), quartering him, and feeding his genitals to a bald eagle while he watches would be a just form of punishment. Our justice system does not believe that we can use extremely harsh forms of punishment merely to scare other citizens away from committing crime, since it treats that individual criminal as a means to an end, denying that person his or her humanity. ==Looking back to my own case from the previous round== 1. Who does the raping? My opponent does not even attempt to answer this question. Prison guards are often willing to administer lethal drugs to an inmate, but this does NOT mean that they would be willing to rape that same dirty, smelly, ugly inmate. My opponent never answers if the rapists would be a woman or a man, which might affect inmate pleasure levels and deterrence. And if the State must compel a prison guard or private citizen to rape the rapist, then this violates our right to self-ownership, the very right that makes rape a violation/crime in the first place. The State forcing a prison guard to rape an inmate or lose his/her paycheck has equal moral culpability as the original rapist. If the State is merely sanctioning a rapist raping another rapist, this makes it still a crime, meaning the new rapist must be raped as well, leading to the infinite regress discussed in my third point. 2. Not a punishment My opponent responds to this point by saying that if it saves lives (through deterrence), then who cares if we don't consider raping a typical punishment. This is NOT what I meant by "not a punishment." I meant that some or even most rapists would enjoy being raped (particularly if their punisher was a woman, which my opponent has still failed to specify). If they ENJOY being raped, the rape penalty is not a penalty, is it a reward. My opponent says that rape may not be the only punishment, however the resolution says "an eye for an eye implementation of the rape penalty," which means that the punishment must fit the crime and nothing more. An eye for an eye cannot be interpreted to mean "well if an eye for an eye isn't deterrent enough, we could do an eye for (an eye AND a leg)." The resolution HAS to be interpreted as rape is the only punishment, otherwise my opponent is debating about a different style of implementing the rape penalty, not an "eye for an eye implementation." 3. Circular State sanctioned crime is still crime. Just because Japan sanctioned rapes in China during WWII doesn't mean that we recognize the State's right to perpetuate crime as legitimate. If the State can sanction the rape of a rapist, why can't it sanction the military raping citizens as a legitimate tool of war? The Constitution was meant to check State power so that the State could not unjustly perpetuate aggression against citizens, which is why the 8th Amendment exists. Without the 8th Amendment, even under utilitarianism, we would live in a world of Patriot Acts and torture of all the accused. If all we care about is deterrence and punishment, why have rights for the accused? Torture is a much more efficient and easier way to solve crime than is police work. Why even bother caring about the innocent? If we kill a few innocents, that won't hurt society all that much, and we can justify this as long as deterrence is maximized and more lives are saved – or so the logic of my opponent goes. 4. Unconstitutional I explain in my previous point how the Constitution ties into ethics because from a utilitarian perspective, without it, the State will abuse its police powers. In addition, we have rights above and beyond what maximizes societal happiness. 5. Kritik My opponent assumes that rape is punishment, assuming (I'm assuming) that rape would be a male-on-male act of domination/submission, and violater/violated. This reifies typical modes of male domination as a form of punishment. And as Spike Peterson, a political scientists at University of Arizona points out, "gendered identities are key to manifestations of violence . . . cultures vary significantly in how they construct masculinity (hence, war-making and rape are not universal), and second, that more violent societies evidence more systematic cultivation of gender polarity, rigid heterosexism, male power in physical and symbolic forms, and ideologies of masculine superiority." So the way my opponent constructs masculinity, as something that inherently dominates and punishes, and constructs femininity, as something that is bad, i.e. the criminal being raped feminizes him and he is thus punished, reinforces the very same negative gender constructions that contribute to a culture of domination and rape in our society in the first place. Only by breaking free of this mode of representation can we help break down the cultural identities that contribute to rape as an act of domination and subjugating the feminine. If we continue to view rape as the ultimate form of subjugation, we only make it all the more attractive to would-be-emasculated-rapists. Empirically, rape is more about subjugation than sex. Shame on my opponent for perpetuating this view of rape.