judicial system needs reform

//"My opponent poses the question of which religion, The answer to this question is any religion"// My opponent claims that any religion may be subbed in for our judicial system as "the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar". However this is simply not true as Jainism teaches that one should not harm any living creature[1] but then Judaism and Christianity teach that homosexuality is punishable by death[2]. As one can see replacing the present judicial system with general religious law would not solve anything. 1) Adultery is immoral, it is not illegal. I actually do raise objection to this point in that A)My opponent showed no reason why adultery was immoral or should be illegal and B)My opponent neglected to mention that adultery is illegal in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona[3]. My opponent next responds to my issue with how his solution would fix the abortion issue and why abortion is wrong iin itself. My opponent responds with "I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another." I assume this means that we should love other living things. However people who support abortion sometimes claim that A)A fetus is not alive and B)Terminating the pregnancy is actually the merciful thing to do in some situations. My opponent then brings an unexpected point. He claims that "All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us." And to prove this he claims that //"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"// However my opponent fails to see that this does not mean that men are born with knowledge of what is truly right and wrong. Just drawing on my opponent's example, we could say that Hitler and his followers did not know the difference in that they believed they were doing the right thing in trying to rid the world of what they perceived to be inferior peoples. Did they know that what they were doing 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."// My opponent next claims that killing is immoral in every instance and that just because the vitim is a baby does not make it any more right. However this contradicts my opponent's earlier claim that it was right to fight the Nazis and Hitler in that what they were doing was wrong. So either killing is right in some instances or it isn't. What is the fetus is killing the mother and that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the mother will die? You may love the fetus and the mother but the mother is the only living being and thus takes priority. 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. My opponent claims that fraud is legal and claims that "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." However we do not have to believe my opponent in that all he brings is a personal anecdote and not any external evidence to prove his claim. This argument may be dropped until my opponent brings solid evidence in favor of his claim. My opponent's next claim is that a person's moral character needs to be taken into account in a court room. But by what standard should we judge that person's moral character? My opponent believes that religious law should be used to determine a person's moral character but I already brought the examples of absolute pacifism in Jainism and punishment of homosexuals by death in Christianity and Islam. My opponent needs to be more specific in this claim. My opponent's full statement is below. //"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."// In the example of the affairs, depending on what state the woman lived in, this may or may not have been illegal. Also my opponent is only assuming that adultery is wrong and has not rationally proven this. As to the drug abuse part, as of now drug abuse is against the law and can be dealt with while not paying attention to the person's moral character. Gay marriage //"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."// And what about when it comes to adultery. My opponent is clearly firmly against adultery but if the two people do love each other does that make it right? Euthenasia My opponent in the case of euthenasia claims that while killing is immoral, if you do it right then it should be okay. An example of it being okay my opponent claims is if the person obtains "a legal documentation from the victim saying it was his will and he recommended no punishment, his will would have to be followed". What if a person is in a coma and is unable to respond? My opponent's example completely depends on the person's ability to commnunicate. Is a person who is unable to communicate suffering any less than anoter person who is able to communicate? Victim choosing punishment The reason we have laws is so that regardless of someone's personal feelings towards another their punishment is as much as possible deserving aand appropriate. As I said earlier, the victim of a crime is the last person who should have the ability to decide the punishment of the offendor. If I am savagely beaten by some thug then you can bet that I am going to want some pretty sweet revenge, however the law is the only system that when used corectly can insure that a criminal offendor is not subject to cruel and unusual punishment. //"What makes a Judge smarter than you when it comes to what should happen?"// Is this a serious question? Let's see. Maybe the years and years of legal training and experience that it takes to become a judge. I trust that most will agree that a judge has a little more legal expertise than grocery store manager or a UPS driver. Unfortunately I have run out of character space and will deal with the rest of my opponent's case in the next round/ [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.biblegateway.com... [3]http://www.epis.us...