Resolved: Capital Punishment in Texas is Unjust.

Hey! :D So...this is to help me get ready for my first tournament. You know-give critiques and such. Oh, and don't bother copying and pasting-I had it copyrighted. Thanks! -Matthew Deski P.S- this is my neg .........................................................................................................................Let's start with a scenario. You are in the prime of your life. Your kids are starting school. Your spouse is working hard. Your dog is being as rambunctious as usual. One night, you decide that you need a break. You decide to hang out with your friends, maybe get a drink at your favorite bar. Your unaware that a person has broken and destroyed your house and all the things you worked so hard to put them in your house to make it look good, killed your family, and stolen all the valuables. Now, you would want justice for your very loving family. Would you want that person in a prison with a chance, no matter how slim that chance is, to escape? Or for him to be on death row, waiting to pay for the crimes he has committed. Would you want justice for the love of your life, and your beautiful children? Today, I stand in negation of Resolved: Capital Punishment in Texas is Unjust. The highest value I shall uphold in today's debate is safety, which is the state of being free from harm. My criterion, therefore, must be Proportional Retributivism, which claims that a person should be punished in a way that is proportional to the crime they committed. We are going to inflict pain and suffering to an equal degree upon them, while keeping in mind their morality. The rapist is not going to be raped, but he will suffer to an equal degree i.e prison. If we are in commission of Proportional Retributivism, then we are providing safety to a society. I now offer the following definitions for clarity: Capital Punishment- the legally authorized killing as punishment for a capital crime. Unjust- not based on or behaving according to what is morally fair or right. Contention 1: Capital Punishment Provides Safety to a Society. The role of retribution to improving the safety of society is clear. The respect for human life is a characteristic of a civilized society. The state governed by law maintains this respect through the death penalty. According to Baylor Briefs, The message of the death penalty: If you do violence to, or murder a human being and/or show disrespect for human life, then the state has the right to take away your freedom and rights. David Anderson, a journalist specializing in issues related to the death penalty, says in in his 2005 book : It is the death penalty that in a practical way that most effectively can confirm that the citizens have an inviolable value and that the states governed by law respects the human value. In order to make clear the value of an innocent citizen's life, the murderers must be punished with death. Contention 2: Capital Punishment Provides Retribution to a Society. From J. Budziszewski, professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas in Austin in July of 2008: Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminals take from victims their life, liberty, peace, and safety to satisfy his hunger for murder. Deserved punishment protects society morally by respecting this order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution, the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good…retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment. In conclusion: The death penalty is not unjust. It is morally justified. How can we have a functioning society if we are not safe? How can we be safe if we do not have the death penalty? Let's refer to the previous scenario. Would you want justice for those beautiful children and the man/woman of your dreams? Thank You.