Chemical sterilization for non-custodial parents of 2 or more children that don't pay child support

==Rebuttal== C1) 8th Amendment My opponent drops all my arguments from the previous round. She concedes that forced sterilization violates all 4 of Justice Brennan's standards for cruel and unusual punishment. The standards are such that if a punishment violates any of them, it is deemed cruel and unusual. 1. Acbriggs concedes that the punishment is "degrading to human dignity" by conceding the evidence from the ICW, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations. She also concedes my analysis that male castration is held up in pop culture as the ultimate form of degradation. 2. She drops the argument that the punishment is "arbitrary" since the resolution has no explanation for why it must be "2 or more children" and not "1 or more" or "3 or more. " In addition, the punishment is arbitrary because rich people can always avoid forced sterilization by paying the child support on the spot, so it is only applied to the poor. 3. She drops that forced sterilization is "rejected throughout society," and my analysis regarding the backlash against John Holdren's previous statements on forced sterilization. 4. She drops that forced sterilization is "unnecessary" since there are other methods of enforcement. My opponent's new argument (leaving aside that new argument shouldn't be made in the final round) is that the rights of the child can justify violating the liberty of the parents. First, the legal doctrines my opponent cites do not completely revoke parental liberty. "In the United States, the parental liberty doctrine imposes constraints upon the operation of the in loco parentis doctrine. " [1] This means that the rights of the child do not mean you can do whatever you want to the parents. Second, I question whether forced sterilization is even in the best interest of the child. Under C3 in the previous round, I brought up the argument that once the non-custodial parent is punished through forced sterilization, he has no incentive to ever pay child support again because he cannot be sterilized twice, so he cannot be punished again. Any form of punishment that actually induces payment would be in the child's best interest, but forced sterilization does not accomplish this end. In fact, forced sterilization would merely make the non-custodial parent resentful of his children. ---14th Amendment--- My opponent claims children have a right to equal protection, which she takes as a right to be equally as wealthy as other children. Firstly, only a complete redistribution of wealth could make all children equally wealthy. Second, orphans have no parents and are going to be worse off, no matter what, than someone who has a loving, income-earning custodial parent. Most people would rather have a single parent than be an orphan. Lastly, the 14th Amendment doesn't mean that everyone is the U. S. has to be equal. The 14th Amendment is "equal protection UNDER THE LAW," meaning that laws should not be applied differently to different groups of people. My opponent's law actually violates the 14th Amendment because she gives non-custodial parents a chance to pay the child support in full instead of being sterilized. Society would view this as the rich being able to pay their way out of a punishment that the poor cannot avoid. Imagine if the rich could pay $100 million to avoid the death penalty. Society would view my opponent's forced sterilization law in a similar fashion. ---Child pornography--- First, there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Second, the 8th Amendment is not a protection of rights (unlike the 1st Amendment), it is a limit on State power. It is like the prohibition on ex post facto laws (a retroactive punishment for something that was not illegal at the time). Since the 8th Amendment limits State power, it is different from violating privacy rights. ---Nevada Court Case--- All these arguments are irrelevant, since the courts have already made a ruling on punitive sterilization. We don't have to argue and guess what the courts would do; we have direct evidence of what they would do. Extend my Harry Hamilton Laughlin evidence from round one that the Nevada federal district court ruled that punitive sterilization violates the 8th Amendment. My opponent's law would be overturned immediately. C2) Better enforcement a. Automatic paycheck deduction My opponent never really answers that this solves most of the problem. She thinks that people who are perpetually unemployed are just lazy, and it is a lifestyle choice. However, most unemployed people who have trouble finding work are unemployed because they have no marketable skills. According to the 2008 Time Use Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average unemployed person looks for work every single day and spends a significant amount of time increasing his or her education levels or acquiring technical training. [2] b. Confiscating property My opponent just cites a link here. The link says nothing about the merits of confiscating property. My opponent thus concedes that confiscating a non-custodial parents' property and selling it would be a good enforcement mechanism and would successfully force the parent to pay child support. c. Jail time If a non-custodial parent shows up to court proceedings but fails to pay child support, he may be sent to jail. My opponent doesn't argue against my analysis that jail is a huge incentive for most people (the non-homeless) to act in a certain way. d. Revoked license My opponent cites that there are many unlicensed drivers in Missouri. Her own evidence explains why: Missouri is one of the states where driving on a revoked license does not carry a mandatory jail sentence, but merely a fine. Unlicensed driving does carry mandatory jail time in most states (most states punish first offenders with 6 months in prison). [3] My opponent claims dodging child support is a worse crime than driving on a revoked license, but considering the type of people who have their licenses revoked (drunk drivers, half-blind old people who miserably fail their driving test), I think driving on a revoked license is worse since it greatly endangers public safety. C3) Other sterilization options If you (the judge) agree with my C1 and C2, then ignore C3. I believe all sterilization is cruel and unusual and there are better option. If, however, you agree with my opponent that sterilization is a good punishment, then vote on C3. Chemical castration Would only be used on females in the form of a birth control shot, once every 3 months. Surgical sterilization My opponent has no real answer to this. Surgical sterilization is more humane since it is reversible, and thus it is more likely to pass muster in the court system. ==Round summary== The standard for weighing this round should be what is in the best interests of the child and society. 1. The child My proposed punishments under C2 (most of which are used in the status quo), including automatic paycheck deduction, confiscation of property, jail time, and license revocation, all give non-custodial parents a huge incentive to stay current on child support payments. Forced sterilization does not. If we replace all the current enforcement methods with forced sterilization, then as soon as the non-custodial parent is sterilized, he can never be punished again and will never pay child support. The child would prefer to have the money. 2. Society Society has an interest in upholding the 8th Amendment. Otherwise, the U. S. would be like Singapore, where people are caned for littering and put to death for doing cocaine. People could be skinned alive as punishment. Allowing cruel and unusual punishments is a very slippery slope. A Con vote is in the best interest of everyone involved. Please vote Con. [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [