Sentence "Attempted" Crimes The Same As Successful Ones

Thanks to MasturDbtor for his response. For some reason my opponent has not classified his arguments into sections, the way we were doing from the starting. It makes it slightly difficult to follow his arguments. I will continue with the sectioning, adding a few points. I will do my best to classify his arguments. Absence of proper classification makes it difficult to spot how many of my arguments he has dropped and thereby conceded. Of course, I will do my best to help the voters. ==Authority== Pro has dropped my argument that Argument from authority is essential part of informal logic. Pro has dropped my argument that since his arguments are against all authorities, they should be considered as extraordinary. Pro has ignored my argument that the burden of proof is on him. Rather, Pro has tried to discredit ALL the authorities I presented! It is not my intention to defend The Holy Bible, The Holy Quran, The US Supreme Court and The Indian Penal Code in a single debate. There are many people who do not consider one or more than one of these authorities to be perfect. However, what everyone agrees is that these books are or have been the basis of judicial system in different parts of the world over different time periods. So as far as the judicial system is concerned, they are the appropriate authorities. I included Kant as he is considered as one of the foremost philosopher who deliberated upon this subject using logic. Pro says, "Con seems to be implying that legal situations exist in some moral limbo where ordinary moral reasoning does not apply." Legal situation do not exist in 'Limbo'. However that is a problem for you. As the major legal systems have the concept of retribution, it stands to reason that there must be some compelling reason behind it. That makes your argument extraordinary unless you can present some very strong reason in support of your position. Incidentally, apart from presenting the authorities, I have presented those reasons as well. ==Retribution== It was Pro's burden to prove his extra-ordinary claim as to why retribution should not be part of legal system. Rather I presented the reasons why it should be part of the system. It should be the part of the system so that the criminal, who has inflicted some harm on the victim, should not escape without a proportionate punishment. If this is not ensured, it will be unfair and unjust to the victim. And as I said earlier the victim is important to the judicial system. Let us look at the Pro's objection: 1. Sunken Cost: As I explained, victims of violent crimes cannot be considered as sunken cost. 2. Things going out of hand: I had explained this will not happen if the punishment is meted out through the court after due scrutiny of evidence. Pro has also presented some straw-man arguments as objection: 1. Husband, Wife, Cheating: This is a civil case. This debate is about criminal law system, not about civil law system. This was stated by you in the OP. Hence, it is irrelevant to this debate. 2. Emotions should be handled in civil courts: So apart from the main criminal trial, we should also have a civil trial, where emotions can be considered? Or should the harm suffered by the victims ignored completely in criminal trials? Pro has dropped my argument that proper punishment will help in the recovery process for victims. The alternative to retributive justice is restorative justice [1]. In this system, the rights of the victims are recognized the priority of the court is to undo the effects of crime. In this system also, successful and unsuccessful criminals would be treated differently, because in unsuccessful crimes, no harm has been done to the victim. ==Incapacitation== Pro has dropped my argument that opportunity is more important for criminals than sensation. It is correct that it is my opinion that successful criminals will spot more opportunities. However it is not a baseless opinion. It stands to reason that a criminal who has executed a successful crime in the past is more likely to spot if the opportunity arises again. A criminal who failed earlier is likely to be deterred by his failure. In this case, both of criminals have been apprehended. So this factor should not make a difference between the two. ==Deterrence== Pro has dropped it completely. ==Rehabilitation== Pro accuses me of selective quoting. Here is what he had said. "I concede that ON AVERAGE there could easily be a difference in the difficulty of rehabilitating a successful or unsuccessful criminal." Later on I had also quoted him. "That would be the case ONLY if that was essential to my main argument, and it is NOT." I did change, 'essential to my main argument' to 'main point'. I apologise, if it changed the meaning of his statement in any way. But I don't think so. If it is not essential to his main argument, two natural questions arise. 1. What are his main arguments? 2. And if this is not his main argument, why does he spend half of his post talking about it? No matter how small this point is according to my opponent, if I can prove that successful and unsuccessful criminals respond differently to rehabilitation in general, then I win the whole debate. I do not need to prove it - as my opponent has already conceded it. Pro tries to argue that ruthlessness is better criteria than success or failure of crime. I do not have any objection to using ruthlessness as a measure. But he needs to explain why success and failure should not be considered as criteria in addition to ruthlessness when he concedes that there is a direct correlation between success of crime and rehabilitation requirements. My opponent has also talked about correlation vs. causation. As far as rehabilitation is concerned, strong correlation has to be considered while passing the sentence. Rehabilitation needs of women are different from men. This fact has to be considered while sentencing. Of course, rehabilitation is not the only criteria. Other factors (like retribution) have to be considered as well. ==Conclusion== I have not yet understood the difference between 'essential to my arguments' and 'main point'. So while my opponent explains the difference and presents his essential arguments, I will argue the voters to VOTE CON. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...