The Death Penalty

Before I begin my opening argument/rebuttal, I’d like to clarify my position, which is that the death penalty is in fact justified for extreme crimes. I’d also like put forth a definition for both of us right away as a formality: Death Penalty (aka DP): A sentence of punishment by execution. [1] On top of this, I’d also like to argue (with Con’s consent) under the assumption that the actual method of DP used causes no physical pain. If he does not consent, then I’m willing to argue that as well. Now, onto my argument/rebuttal: What is Justice? First, I shall give my definition of justice, as justice can be subjective. To keep it brief, justice, in my own mind, is the idea that a person must pay his due for a crime (in a moral fashion), as another person must be rewarded for his lack of criminality. That, to me, is what justice really is as a concept. As a legal system, justice should act in a similar fashion, with the additional goal of protecting society. How does the Death Penalty fit in? As far as the idea of justice goes, to me, the DP fits in rather obviously. A murderer (or other committer of some heinous crime) is paying for his crime, quite literally, with his life. Now, what I am not suggesting is the eye-for-an-eye justice system. I believe it is quite clear that raping a rapist, or robbing a thief is taking the scenario a bit too far. However, what I am suggesting is the notion of a threshold of sentencing. For example, a person convicted of a quadruple homicide would be very likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his/her crime. Now, when looking at that sentence, I’d say that life imprisonment without parole is equal in purpose to the DP. A person confined to jail for the rest of his/her life without the possibility of leaving is, effectively, punishing the convict by removing him/her from society forever. Now let’s look at the DP. The DP is removing the convict from society permanently as well—albeit in a different fashion. So, it is my contention that: (P1) Life Imprisonment without parole (LI) removes a person from society permanently in a prison. (P2) The death penalty (DP) removes a person from society permanently by ending his/her life. (C1) Therefore, LI and DP have the same purpose/goal. Is Life Imprisonment really more humane/moral? Okay, now we have determined that LI and DP have the same purpose. So let’s look at their differences in effect. It is stated by Con that killing another person, “beside torture, is the highest evil known to man.” I will concede that murder to me as well is morally wrong. However, while we’re on the subject of what is moral, I find it to be prudent that we should examine LI as a form of punishment. According to Con’s statement, Life Imprisonment is automatically superior in morality to DP because LI does not involve taking the life of the convict. But that statement is not universally upheld. One example is from a person who used to be in prison. He states that “[He] can testify that prison life is a very harsh punishment. Life is monotonous, with a drab, dreary, unchanging routine, and too much time in which there is little to do.” He also later concludes, “Before my stint in prison, I was a staunch anti-death penalty person. After my few years, I find myself leaning more in favor of the death penalty, as it seems to me to be a most humane thing to do,” [2]. And he isn’t the only one with these sentiments. In the first row of a table of arguments for the DP, Life Imprisonment is referred to as an “elongated, intense level of suffering for a prisoner,” [3]. Now, reading those two descriptions, it seems to me that a person being executed (assuming appeals have failed) is clearly a more humane punishment than a life sentence. To drive this point even further, I’d like to look more closely at Con’s statement: that killing, “beside torture, is the highest evil known to man.” Note that Con says “beside torture.” The dictionary defines torture as “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty,” [4]. This is where my second contention comes in. (P1) Life imprisonment can (and does) cause emotional and psychological suffering for a prisoner. (P2) Torture is equal to causing a person to suffer excessively. (P3) Con states that torture is just as evil, if not more so, than ending the life of another person. (C2) Therefore, according to Con’s statements, the DP is more humane and moral than LI. Summary (P1) LI and DP have the same purpose/goal. (P2) According to Con’s statements, the DP is more humane and moral than LI. (C3) Therefore, the DP is justified as a means of punishment. Thank you References [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.daytondailynews.com... [3] http://www.slideshare.net... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com...