Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

=Retribution=I dismissed them, because this is an "Appeal to authority" fallacy. Just listing people, organizations, and codes agreeing with retribution does not suffice as evidence that it is a legitimate goal of justice, since human beings(which are part of organizations and which write codes) are fallible. Citing them by explaining the arguments they used on the other hand would be evidence.I see that in the new round Con has elaborated an argument so I will address it.That the victims will never get a sense of closure is an argument that could just as easily be applied to non-criminal cases. The same logic that says a criminal must be punished to bring the victims or relatives "closure" would say that it's appropriate for a husband to retaliate to his wife's cheating by cheating on her, or for someone to retaliate against rumor-mongerers by in turn spreading rumors about them.And of course in the criminal justice system it's rarely tit-for-tat(nor should it be) as punishments are rarely truly the same as the crime so it would also be analogous to "get even" in a way different from what the other person does. Take for example someone insults someone at a bar, rather than "getting even" with another insult sometimes people throw punches.Most people would not consider these examples to be just and would consider someone who walks away and does not seek to do harm to a person in retaliation for their act to be more just. Do these people get hurt by "not getting a sense of closure"? No, because they let it go. As hard as it can be sometimes when a person is hurt they still have a choice about how to deal with the aftermath. This choice exists regardless of what happens to the criminal.Using retribution as a factor encourages a mindset that only by causing pain can you move on from an act they committed against you on all levels of society. Even the way Con words his justification that "victims...will never get a sense of closure" shows this attitude, worded as if it is inevitable that the victims will not move on without pain being inflicted.This does not mean we should not have a criminal justice system, but that the harm inflicted on people in the criminal justice system is a necessary evil for the public good as without it some people would have no reason to refrain from committing crime and some dangerous people would be out committing more harm to society.Con goes on to claim that the reason retribution is acceptable but revenge is not is because retribution is only metted out by the judicial system when a crime is clearly proven. He also says if retribution wasn't factored in vigilanteism would be justified. The logic of this is that revenge is perfectly OK morally in non-criminal cases since the state isn't doing anything about it, at the very least moral if you know 100% that the person did it or that someone demonstrates that they did something to you.=Rationality=Con claims rationality is valid in business and finance. True, but it is also valid and often spoken of in philosophy, political and social sciences and criminal justice. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RationalityCon seems to misunderstand rationality. Rationality is NOT purely financial. While in business it's common practice only to apply rationality to the goal of maximizing profits that's because that's what businesses are set up to do. However, regardless of what is being measured counting "sunken costs" does not make rational sense.Law and justice of all things should be determined through the use of reason. Leaving something so vital to whim is ridiculous.Punishing for the sake of revenge harms one party and helps none. Something that does no good for anybody can not be good for "justice". To maximize justice we must strive to maximize the good for both the collective and individuals. Even if someone personally feels they need revenge, validating that viewpoint does more harm to that individual than good as it promotes immoral behavior(that of revenge-seeking) and hence degrades the person's moral character.=Incapacitation=Con's generalization does not logically follow. A person who is caught after successfully committing a crime is not going to think to themselves "that was easy", to paraphrase the quote cited as a reason for repeat attempts in the source. The source is even more distant from that scenario than Con implied in the last round. The document is not only talking about people who committed more than one crime, but more than one crime against the same victims.Con goes on to present that his personal opinion that scenario #1 is more likely than scenario #2 based on nothing more than "appearance". A person's subjective judgement of how something "appears" is not sound evidence, especially since he does not elaborate on why it "appears" to be so. To me it appears the other way around, but I can actually explain this appearance. 1. Some convicts change their ways.2. Some convicts do not change their ways.Who is more likely to change their ways someone who failed and so doesn't have a concrete experience of actually committing the act and experiencing not just the legal penalty but the moral and emotional penalties of witnessing the harm done or someone who succeeded and knows first hand how horrible their crime is?Now consider who is more likely to have their pride hurt by the whole experience, someone who succeeds in committing a crime or someone who fails? Pride could motivate another attempt.Status is closely linked to issues of pride, and committing crimes due to social status or peer pressure is a common reason as indicated by "Motivations For Violent Crime Among Incarcerated Adults: A Consideration of Reinforcement Processes".http://www.doc.state.ok.us..."Peer Pressure/Group Behavior" accounted for 49% of assaults, 35% of rapes, 22% of robbery, 16% of burglary, and 18% of shoplifting. "The difficulty or challenge", which may seem higher after having an experience of trying yet failing was 34%, 62%, 46%, 38%, and 36%, respectively. Furthermore, while "ease" is definitely a motivating factor having failed before is not going to stop someone from noticing if a crime seems to be "easy".=Deterrence=If Con was trying to prove that deterrence is not the ONLY goal of the criminal system he misread my arguments. I never said deterrence is or should be the ONLY goal of the criminal system. I also included incapacitation and rehabilitation. As for considering "harms" to the criminal, that's a limiting factor in how far the criminal justice system should go in punishment. Sentencing attempted crimes the same as successful ones does not do any criminal any disproportionate harm.=Rehabilitation="It is the burden of Pro to provide evidence that it is equally difficult to rehabilitate a successful and unsuccessful criminal."That would be the case ONLY if that was essential to my main argument, and it is NOT.I concede that ON AVERAGE there could easily be a difference in the difficulty of rehabilitating a successful or unsuccessful criminal.BUT we have DETAILS. Why rely on generalities when you can use details and get more precise justice? Correlation does not mean causation. Even if successful criminals did tend to be harder to rehabilitate that would not mean their success itself caused it to be harder. Even Con in his argument points out that a person might succeed in their crime due to their ruthlessness in committing it or fail due to lack of ruthlessness, and that ruthlessness might show a person is harder to rehabilitate. Simply succeeding does NOT indicate that one was ruthless. A person might hesitate and still succeed. Similarly, failing does NOT prove lack of ruthlessness.Ruthlessness can be measured more directly. We do NOT have to rely on mere correlations, and so we shouldn't. We can look at all the facts of the crime itself in detail. Did the criminal slow down at all in his commission of the crime or was he going fast? Did he use weapons? In what ways?