A New Radical Justice System

My opponent's side of the debate: "my system...[is] practically superior" My opponent means to argue practical superiority over that of every other justice system in the world. I will argue that the system presented is not practically superior. Practical: (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. . .suitable for a particular purpose[1] My opponent's main contentions are: Justice systems today do not sufficiently punish criminal actions + direct physical crimes committed must be reciprocated on the criminal The main supporting arguments to these contentions are hypothetical situations and Saudi Arabia. It is very important to note that the main driving force behind my opponent's belief that his justice system (what's best in practical terms) is his personal sense of justice. There is a fault to his 'justice'. In comparing torture with murder, arson with theft, et cetera et cetera, my opponent implicitly claims to be the model to judging the degrees of evil in a crime and that the judgment of others are null and void compared to his. In essence, his personal standards outweigh that of any other people. What makes torture worse than death (I'd rather take a week of torture than die)? Why is arson worse than theft? Already, a problem appears in my opponent's justice system. It is based around the judgment of one person alone (namely, my opponent himself). Practicality has already been lost in that there will have to be a constant reference to one person for all anomalous cases (because, as you yourself has already seen when presenting your views to others, the number who has tacitly/explicitly expressed opposition to your personal judgment is unsurprisingly high; no one shares your views). As such, the definition of practical, (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances, already negates my opponent's contention in that his system is NOT LIKELY to be implemented at all. Other justice systems are already proven to be practically superior in that its likelihood of implementation far exceeds that of my opponent's (the number of political systems that sport legal systems similar to that of my opponent are near nonexistent).[2] Justice systems are meant to satisfy society over the individual. My opponent assumes to know the victim would be thirsty for blood (eye for an eye). Again, my opponent takes his personal views and opinions far above that of even the victim. In many cases, victims of extreme criminal activity are sufficiently satisfied by the imprisonment or death of the criminal. Some families who have lost children to murder even go as far as trying to understand the criminal[3][4][5] Victims don't want vengeance to such a degree as is being advocated by my opponent. They just want to be able to continue their lives and live as normal people. Society's main concern should not be vengeance (as that is not the concern of the victim), rather, it should be the healing of the victim's emotional trauma. In a true-account narrative about kidnap-rape victim, Jaycee Lee DuGard, the author recounts to the reader about the 18 years Jaycee spent under kidnap (since childhood) and the traumatic crimes committed against her (several textual supplements were provided including Jaycee's journal that she was allowed to keep during captivity). In her narrative, she explicitly states that she does not hate her captor. Jaycee is currently working to comfort families of victims and to prevent such occurrences from happening (through appeal). My opponent assumes that all victims would hypothetically want vengeance. This has been proven to be untrue. To punish the criminals (what do we do with serial killers? kill them thirty times?) to the degree my opponent asks would not only be unnecessary, but also would inflict scarring images to those forced to view such proceedings. Current justice systems sufficiently punish victims in a way that satisfies society as a whole (and not an individual self-righteous person). Now to address Saudi Arabia. Where does the statement that Saudi Arabia has the lowest crime rate stem from? Unsupported that cannot be proven fact until otherwise proven (factual document, source, report, etc.). If Saudi Arabia is such a great place, go live there. It has horrible human rights and inflicts harsh punishments for even peaceful dissent. There is no trial or due process, they detain people and punish them whenever they feel like it (people receive harsh physical punishment for posting articles that do not concur with Saudi Arabian views), internet critics crossing vague "red lines" face arrest, there is no freedom of speech, expression, or belief. They execute children for murder (that their children even commit murder exhibits the nation's moral dearth) and people for sorcery. Saudi Arabia's horrible conditions (despite its wealth of oil) give an insight to life under my opponent's justice system. Saudi Arabia's crime rate, in contrast to my opponent's statement, is phenomenally high. Since the smallest infraction is considered a crime, Saudi Arabia suffers from high crime rates under the standards of Saudi Arabian legal systems. Instead of serving to deter crime, the legal system pro seeks to implement would lower standards in defining what crime actually is. EX: Bully the bullies. I think it's only fair for me to also bring up a hypothetical scenario: 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. Another hole in pro's legal system: with such a frightening degree of punishment, no matter how remorseful a criminal may be, he/she would not be inclined to admit anything since your system would harshly deal punishment. The 10 witness testimony also fails in certain cases (EX1: rape victim is the sole testimony and the rapist denies, what now?) (EX2: 10 people from an underground organization come out to testify falsely to frame person, you kill an innocent person.) Other legal systems are more meticulous in the trial process; innocent people are rarely punished by accident. The requirements to pinning guilt on a person are so few and so easily falsified, the type of error described above would occur more often, rendering the system impractical in stopping crime. Error in pro's legal system: child rapists are 'raped' in return instead of put in prison. What next? The punished has satisfied the quota of punishment. Under pro's system, there is no further punishment for them. They'd be logically released into society again. Psychotic criminals may rape children, come back for self-butt rape, then go back to raping children, cycle repeats. How does pro know punishment has been effected at a sufficient level? Criminals can even put on a facade of suffering/pain. You will NEVER know. Face it, the system is imperfect. Main points: Any legal system imposed on an unwilling people would overturn social order and cause either chaos or suffering (China, Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union...) Pro's system of punishment is widely opposed (the consensus being that it is horrific by those you've presented it to) Majority rules. Pro's system is impractical. Pro's system does not deter crime and allows criminals to continue practicing it. http://oxforddictionaries.com...[1] http://www.bjs.gov...[2] http://www.iirp.edu...[3] http://www.theiacp.org...[4] Glatt, John. "Lost and Found". St. Martin's True Crime, September 28, 2010. Print.[5]