Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

Many thanks to MasturDbtor for his post.Let us move directly to the arguments==Retribution==My opponent insists my arguments consisted of appeal to authority fallacy. I disagree. I actually used appeal to AUTHORITIES. And let us list the authorities which agreed with my contention1. The Holy Bible2. The Holy Quran3. Philosophers like Emmanuel Kant4. Judgement of US Supreme Court5. The India Penal CodeAppeal to authority is a fallacy in formal logic. Just because an authority says so, does not mean it is correct. It is possible for authorities to be wrong.On other hand it is considered a part of informal logic [1]. So while it is possible that all the authorities are wrong - it is not very likely. In other words - if an argument is against the position of all authorities, it should be treated as an extraordinary claim. Such claims should be rejected as improbable unless some very strong evidence is presented.My opponent says"I see that in the new round Con has elaborated an argument so I will address it."The burden to prove your extra-ordinary claim is on you. Why did you expect me to present the arguments?The response is a set of elaborate straw-man attacks.1. Since we are talking about criminal cases - what happens in civil cases is irrelevant to this debate. My opponent believes husband cheating as a response to cheating by wife counts as revenge. I will resist my temptation to comment, as it is irrelevant.2. I am talking about responsibilities of legal system. What happens in bar-fights is irrelevant - unless it turns up before court.3. I did not say, I support vigilante action if the state fails. I said, "It can be argued that if retribution is not a component of judicial system then vigilante justice would be justified". I do not intend to defend this position in this debate. However I will just note that ignoring rights of emotions of victims can lead to whole system of justice coming under attack.I did say that situation will not go out of hand in court administered retribution as the crime has to be proved clearly before any punishment is meted out. My opponent conceded this point by dropping the argument.In a criminal trial, apart from the offender, the victim (relatives in case of murder) too has to be considered. In fact, the victim is more important than the offender. Some victims may be able to move on. Others may not find it so simple. In some cases, complete closure may never be possible. Proper punishment to offenders will definitely help in the process. This factor has to be considered while awarding sentence.In unsuccessful crime, victims do not face that kind of problem. So a reduction in punishment may be applicable (while keeping other factors in mind)==Rationality==I said,"Pro has asserted that 'rationality' ignores sunken cost. This is a concept valid in the world of business and finance. People who have died and people who undergo trauma as a result of crime are not 'sunken cost'. Human justice and human emotions are not business investments, where you analyze which option will give you the maximum returns in purely financial terms."Pro started a new section stating that I do not believe that rationality is applicable human emotions. What I said was the concept of 'sunken cost' is not applicable to human emotions.When we deal with human beings - such as victims of crimes - we have to deal with their emotions as well. I would like Pro to explain whether he considers these emotions as 'whims'? Does he consider the loss incurred by the victims as sunken cost? Does he consider the victims and the damage done to them to be irrelevant to criminal trials? Is this what he understands from rationality?==Incapacitation==Pro has provided an excellent source which analyses the motivations for five types of crime (Shoplifting, burglary, robbery, rape and assault). Among the factors discussed are 'Peer Pressure/Group Behavior', 'the difficulty or challenge', 'Easy opportunity, had the chance to do it' among many others. It is an in depth study and the Pro has tried to draw few quick conclusions from the first table. The conclusions he has drawn are actually disproved by the paper, as I will explain below.1. Pro has argued that unsuccessful criminal will have 'more peer pressure' and will face more 'The Difficulty or challenge'. The argument is non sequitur. What is also possible is that the successful criminal would go for more difficult and challenging crimes and may face more peer pressure as he has been successful in past. We can also say that successful criminals will locate more opportunity because of their past success.2. Pro has referred to raw data. The researchers have done lots of analysis to classify and analyze motivations. Peer pressure and difficulty are considered as component of 'Sensation/Thrill'. On other hand ‘easy opportunity’ is classified as 'Opportunity'. Final conclusions have been presented in table 7. In all five types of crimes, opportunity has turned out to be a bigger motivation that sensation/thrill.The study definitely proves that opportunity is bigger motivator for crime than sensation or thrill (5-0 for opportunity!) A successful criminal is more likely to spot opportunities. It follows then that the successful criminal is more motivated to repeat the crime. Incapacitation demands he should get a bigger punishment.==Deterrence==Sentencing attempted criminals does harm the criminal. If the punishment is same as for successful criminals, the harm may be considered as disproportionate as no crime has actually been committed.==Rehabilitation==Pro has admitted that,"I concede that ON AVERAGE there could easily be a difference in the difficulty of rehabilitating a successful or unsuccessful criminal."Then it follows that ON AVERAGE successful criminals should get more punishment than unsuccessful criminals.Pro goes on to demand why we should RELY on success of crime. I am not asking for anyone to rely on it. I only want it to be considered as one of the factors. And the reason it should be considered as factor is that on average there is difference in difficulty of rehabilitating a successful and unsuccessful criminal.I would like to point out that I win this debate even if I can prove for a minor case that successful and unsuccessful criminals should be treated differently.MasturDbtor has claimed that rehabilitation was not one of his main points. He has the burden of proving each of his point and till now he has not proved any. We wonder exactly what his main point is.Looking forward to main points from my esteemed opponent...[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://www.nizkor.org...