A New Radical Justice System

"it's human nature to feel fear in regards to pain." Pain is never feared to the degree my opponent attributes until it is felt. I do not fear arthritis because I have not felt the pain it can cause, yet many describe it as mind-crushingly painful. Studies say eating certain foods will cause future harm to the body (fast food contains certain arthritis promoting elements). I don't fear this even though I know that its developmental probability is increased exponentially. I still eat fast-food. While this example may not be perfect, I believe it successfully communicates my point. The fact that my opponent's system actually releases criminals after they've received punishment makes his system horribly incompetent. Rapists do not rape only children. Rapist can rape fully matured girls. The 'del' of physical pain in this case is much lower. How will your system account for the psychological pain of having lost purity/virginity. How does it account for the humiliation? Just butt-raping the rapist and throwing it back out into society is illogical (I don't think I have to explain this; it's quite obvious). Many of our society's crime are committed by the not quite psychologically fit individuals. A hypothetical 'rapist who enjoys being raped' is not very far fetched or silly as my opponent might think. People who are insane usually have a higher capacity for humiliation/pain. Saudi Arabia only has lower intentional homicide rates because of its highly religious community. Muhammad himself, their most venerated figure second to Allah, is recorded to have spoken very explicitly about this issue. Saudi Arabia is the way it is because the Qu'ran (their 'bible') is the law.[2] Click my source and you will see how similar the Qu'ran is to the Saudi Arabian laws described. Fear of pain is not factor in inhibiting crimes. Crime inhibition is largely caused by the hope of achieving a better afterlife. This nation cannot be used as an example because it is not the system but the extreme religious fervor that keeps the people from committing heinous crimes such as murder. Via the Saudi Arabian sample, unless my opponent wants to enforce some kind of quasi-islamic and already extremely popular religion into his system, the system fails horridly. Saudi Arabia is only an exception because of its insane religious fervor. It's laws could never EVER be implemented if it were not for its dominant Islamic belief. The key belief my opponent seems to harbor is that psychological fear of repercussion would place some sort of mental inhibition to keep the criminal-to-be from committing crimes. There is a huge fallacy to this train of thought. Current systems already administer rather harsh punishments such as death and imprisonment. My opponent is saying that ONLY his form of punishment will incur fear. This is not true. I fear prison (my opponent already describes it as a horrible place to be), and I fear death (especially death more than anything). The fear of death is a primal survival instinct key to nearly every single species on earth. Only psychotic people want to commit worse crimes because the punishment would be the same. If this is so, our society would see a large influx of murder because all atrocious crimes (rape, arson, blackmail, etc) would disappear in favor of murder. My opponent says: "if you're going to get bullied in a horribly degrading place named prison you might as well go in for a legendary crime." BY my opponent's logic, murder and torture are the only crimes in existence now because everyone thinks this way. This is not true. Rapists rape for sexual gratification. Murderers murder for many different reasons (monetary gain, vengeance, retaliation to oppression, etc.). Burglars, thieves and robbers burgle, steal and rob for monetary gain. They do not think of their crimes in terms of level of severity. Rather, they commit crimes for personal gain A criminal obviously knows the legal repercussions of murder. This does not stop them from killing, stealing, burning or raping. Similarly, even a nation such as Saudi Arabia (which shares many key similarities to my opponent's system, especially in terms of eye-for-eye) exhibits murderers, rapers, arsonists and thieves. Murderers don't think about getting caught. Most believe they are invincible (as is the case of the kidnapper of Jay Cee DuGard; The kidnapper himself displays a feeling of "I can do everything and anything and get away with it", bragging about his invincibility to poor young Dugard) Look, there is a limit to everything. Students' test scores make for a very good example. A class of students take a test(factor out extra credit). Student A studies 15 hours in a week and receives full credit. Student B studies 50 hours and receives the same score. While it may seem logical that Student B receive more points for his efforts, there is no such thing as getting above 100%. In another scenario, student A studies for a minute while student B studies not at all. Both receive rock bottom zeroes. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a limit to the degree of punishment allowable. This is the sole reason why many nations do not incorporate anything like Hammurabi's or my opponent's code of law. My opponent assumes his code is practical only by laying out a certain train of logic that people hypothetically follow. Many criminals who commit crimes do not believe they will be caught and do not follow the logic my opponent claims they do. THe system will not be effective and thus is not practical. Not only is it impractical, it is very much immoral.. Through the reasoning I have posted in this round, I have logically proven that the degree of psychological inhibition my opponent believes to be in existence really exists only hypothetically. My opponent's 'logical argument' is not considered logical by any other person. Many people instinctively know it to be illogical but lack the ability to clarify this. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.answering-christianity.com...