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

Thanks acbriggs. I'll cover my opponent's opening statement under C3. ==Her case== ---unprotected sex--- My opponent agrees that this argument is a wash – drop this argument from my opponent's case. ==My case== C1) 8th Amendment My opponent cites Justice Brennan's 4 standards under which something might be deemed to violate the 8th Amendment. If I show forced sterilization violates ANY of these standards then I prove that it violates the 8th Amendment. 1. "Punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity" Nothing can be more degrading than to force someone to be sterilized. In pop culture, severing a male's scrotum is among the most degrading acts one can possibly perform. Sexuality is a core aspect of identity. The forced and invasive denial of sexuality is inherently degrading to human dignity. The International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) says that forced sterilization in Namibia is horribly degrading because it violates "the right to non-interference in one's privacy, the right to health, and the right to reproductive self-determination." [1] In addition, the Council of Europe condemns the forced sterilization of sex offenders in the Czech Republic as horribly degrading. [2] "The United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity." [3] 2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." Sterilizing people with two or more children is arbitrary. There is no reason that the number has to be 2 – it could be one, three, four, five, or more. The number two is completely arbitrary. Also, sterilizing only the poor would be seen as arbitrary. My opponent says that prior to sterilization, the individual will have a chance to pay all the child support he owes. Only poor people would be forced to submit to sterilization. The issue is not refusing to pay child support, but the inability to pay. Society would view this policy as discriminatory and thus arbitrary. 3. "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." There are no polls available on American viewpoints on forced sterilization, but considering the massive backlash against John Holdren's (Obama's science czar) compulsory sterilization views, it is quite clear that the American people wholly reject the idea of forced sterilization. [4] In addition, I've cited three sources already showing that the practice is widely condemned. 4. "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." I prove under C2 that there are other forms of punishment available, making forced sterilization patently unnecessary. ---Prior notification--- My opponent argues that sterilization cannot be cruel and unusual because people will be notified about this punishment beforehand. This standard could be used to justify ANY punishment. People can be notified ahead of time that driving over the speed limit will result in having the offender skinned alive. Prior notification doesn't make skinning someone alive any less cruel. The 8th Amendment applies, whether or not people are notified ahead of time. ---Jail--- My opponent claims that jail could be said to be cruel and unusual, but offers no explanation. Jail is currently the least cruel form of punishment for rape and murder. In addition, jail is not unusual – it has been an accepted form of punishment since ancient times. C2) More effective enforcement a. Automatic paycheck deductions My opponent responds that this is "totally contingent upon the non-custodial parent working." This is true. However, my opponent says in Round 1 that CS "should also not be considered if the custodial parent has fallen on hard time." Presumably, unemployment would qualify as falling on hard times. In addition, my opponent has pointed out in the previous round that child support is calculated based on how much the non-custodial parent earns. If the non-custodial parent is perpetually unemployed, he or she would not be required to pay child support in the United States. b. Confiscate property My opponent says, "what if the non-custodial parent has nothing in his/her name?" Then presumably he or she has fallen on hard times and would not be required to pay child support anyway. Being homeless is considered "hard times." My opponent asks what if the "amount collected does not meet owed child support?" If the State confiscates a car and sells it for $5000, the child will get $5000 (even if this is less than owed). If the State punishes the non-custodial parent only with sterilization, the child gets nothing. My opponent asks "how much of the amount collect [sic] would have to go to recover the cost of confiscating and selling the property?" Presumably, the State would only confiscate property that merited the cost of confiscation and sale. c. Jail time My opponent claims that jail is comfy for some people. Putting aside the incidence of rape and violence in prison, prison is still not a nice place to stay for anyone except the homeless. If someone were homeless, he or she would not be required to pay child support in the first place. d. Revoked license Driving on a revoked license is a serious crime, punishable with 90 days in prison on the first offense and 1 year in prison on the second offense. [5] Someone wealthy enough to own a car would most likely not enjoy prison and would thus not drive on a revoked license. Most people would find having their license revoked horribly inconvenient and would thus pay child support to have it reinstated. My opponent asks which crime will be punished first. The more serious crime is usually punished first, which would be driving on a revoked license. C3) More humane sterilization I don't really think I have to win this point; I think I've already proved that forced sterilization is cruel and unusual and will thus be overturned by the courts and also that there are better enforcement mechanisms. However, I'll keep arguing this point, just for the sake of argument. ---CC--- My opponent claims people would skip treatment; however, this would violate their probation agreement, and they would be sent back to jail. My opponent claims people can tongue the pill or vomit; however, chemical castration can be administered via injection. My opponent claims, without evidence, that CS is more cost effective than CC. ---Surgical sterilization--- My opponent claims that tube tying is invasive. She provides no evidence for this claim. In addition, women are very unlikely to be the non-custodial parent. Lastly, CC is much easier to administer to women. CC in women is already widely used in the form of a birth control shot, administered once every 3 months. [6] Surgical sterilization would more likely be used on men. My opponent points out the potential for recidivism – that there might be repeat offenders. Her solution is that we should eliminate the potential for recidivism. Under her logic, we should jail every offender for life or subject every criminal to capital punishment. The goal of criminal justice, especially in this case, should be rehabilitation. The child will benefit more if the non-custodial parent reforms his ways and sends consistent child support checks. If the non-custodial parent is permanently sterilized, he has no incentive afterwards to pay child support, since he cannot be sterilized twice, so he can no longer be punished if you adopt my opponent's punishment for non-payment. I ask you to reject the inhumane and ineffective punishment of forced castration by voting Con. ==Citations== [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...