On the Death Penalty

I will accept my opponent's apologies, and assure him that I am well aware that I have been cursed with a babyface... I'm going to start with my opponent's conclusion, because that delves straight to the point of the argument. He purports: "A criminal retains his natural rights even when he violates the rights of another. A government only has the right to redress of grievances so long as it does not transgress on the natural rights of the criminal." Thus, it is a necessary requirement for the criminal to HAVE rights if the state is to transgress upon them. It makes no more sense to say that the state has transgressed upon rights that the criminal does not have than to say Susie has broken Jeff's toy, which does not exist. **************************** It is no more an appeal to emotion than to justice to characterize an individual paying for their child's murderer "disgusting." My opponent tries to dismiss this as a mere appeal to emotion while ignoring the fact that it is egregiously unjust. If I am of the opinion that unjustice is disgusting, so be it. The fact remains that it is unjust. While there may be no concrete consensus among social contract theorists, that does not mean that I cannot assert my opinion on the matter. My opinion is that a murderer has negated his right to life by taking that right from another. My opponent states that very few social contract theorists incorporate my reasoning into their theory. However, Locke, one of the most recognized SC theorists defends capital punishment in his Second Treatise on Government (forgive my lack of citation - I don't have the book with me, but I can add it as a comment). Also, I'd like to point out that the same source my opponent used states, in the section titled "Violations of the Contract" that "if the people make unreasonable, irrational choices, then the people can lose their rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In purporting that his source defends his conclusion, my opponent completely ignores the fact that his source also undermines his conclusion. My opponent also attempts to use Rousseau's conception of the social contract (compact) to defend the idea that capital punishment is an inappropriate solution. However, Rousseau's concept of the social compact ignores common sense. Why would the thief retain a right to property? The slaver a right to freedom? The murderer a right to life? This sort of retaining of rights flys in the face of appropriate punishment and remuneration for transgressions. Rousseau's social compact seems to suggest that one would mete out punishment disproportionate to the crime - or in other words, take back from the thief only 90% of what he stole. My opponent argues that incarceration fulfills Rousseau's mandate for removal from the social compact. However, incarceration in no way "totally alienates" the criminal "to the whole community." The community is responsible for SUPPORTING the criminal! Additionally, my opponent appeals to cultural relativism as reasoning for why the classification of murder, rape, and child molestation should not be classified as heinous. Since I presume my opponent is not of the opinion that none of these are heinous, I'll leave this argument alone, as it was stipulated in the last round that the particulars of the crimes other than murder (which isn't culturally relative) are unimportant to the resolution. *********************************** My opponent's entire argument rests on the notion that it is wrong to violate the rights of a citizen based on some standard. However, if an individual enters into a social contract where it is understood that certain egregious violations like murder carry a penalty of death, the individual has given his right of self-determination on that subject area to the government. This is the same notion as if I agree that if I hit Paul, Peter is allowed to hit me. Also, when an individual forcibly abridges another's right to life, is basically stating, "I don't believe that the right to life is sufficient reason to prevent one person from killing another." Thus, by his own "admission," the criminal has stated that his right to life is not sufficient reason to prevent the state from killing him. Thus, the reasoning must be based in some other standard. However, the specifics of this other standard are not for this debate, as there is only one round left, and not enough time for us to debate their merits and demerits. I have shown that an individual, by virtue of being a member in society, and forcibly abridging the rights of others in that society, has not only agreed to be punished by the manner that society sees fit, but has also given up his own right to life in cases of murder. As stated above, whether or not the cases where this is true include rape and child molestation is at the purview of the reader... however, please remember that this is not a poll on rapists and child molesters. Murderers have negated their right to life, and thus, the death penalty is an appropriate punishment. AFFIRMED.