Death penalty

Pro is asserting that paedophiles should die. He is also asserting that whenever somebody gains a job another is lost. The world is rarely this neat. Statistics from HM Government (https://www.gov.uk...) show that in the space of ten years (1998-2008) the number of jobs increased by 170,000. If we are to take Pro's argument that giving a paedophile a job automatically denies another person one, we need to find a good reason to ignore this blatantly contradicting statistic. True, the unemployment rate is high, and something needs to be done. But, and I might be alone in this, I believe that mass murder is not the correct solution, With regards to his second point, nothing is too dangerous as long as security is adequate. Where do I plan to put them? Perhaps in prisons, where they are now. Or in workplaces (provided that no children are present, obviously). How does my opponent know what is too costly? Does he know the actual cost of segregating paedophiles? Pro says that it is unfair to make people work with convicted paedophiles. Does he offer any evidence to support his claim? Does it really make any difference to fairness that people will be geographically closer to paedophiles? They'll be present whether you have to work with them or not, but at least when they are working they are contributing. Where would I have paedophiles work? In places that offer jobs they are good at. All that really needs to happen is to make sure that the paedophiles are absent when the children are present. With proper planning, I doubt that it would be difficult. In the second paragraph, Pro offers no evidence to refute my argument. I assume he agrees that paedophiles don't control their actions, but apparently wants to ignore it (whenever someone says 'I will not accept any argument', it's a sign that their viewpoint is fixed. I am sorry to see that my opponent is not open to alternate viewpoints.). 'If they are so disgusted by themselves perhaps they should save me an argument and kill themselves'. Pro apparently believes that paedophiles should kill themselves to save his precious time. Because what are human lives when you have something better to do, right? Also, 'I don't blame people for their mistakes but I ask that they pay for them'? This comment here is metaphorically murdering our idea of justice. It lies dead on the ground, in front of us, once we accept that this is a legitimate argument. Apparently this mindset is needed, but Pro doesn't say why. 'I don't care what aspect of the paedophiles caused them to scar their innocent victims for life, I don't want to know.' This line is a kick in the face to scientific methods of enquiry. One day, science may be able to suppress paedophilia through drugs or therapy, unless we start thinking like this. The moment you say 'I don't want to know' you have effectively sealed yourself off from science, because wanting to know is the reason we do science. Knowing things helps us change things. Yes, their victims are condemned to terrible lives. But so are the paedophiles. They were condemned long before their victims, and just like their victims, by forces that they could not control. '...the paedophile has a 58% chance of being arrested...' I don't know what argument Pro is making here. The arrest rate has nothing to do with whether we should kill them or not. Once the death penalty is introduced, I suspect paedophiles will become better at covering their tracks, so there will be even fewer paedophiles we can find to kill. 'Its (sic) is a disgrace to this nation that we still keep these animals alive.' All humans are animals. I don't see the argument here. Prisons are overcrowded. Pro is saying we should kill the overflow. I'm saying put them to work and make them contribute. Pro says that black men commit five times more crime than white females. My argument is that the number of crimes that have been committed is untrustworthy because it is socially constructed. There is a long chain of events that need to happen before something is reported as a crime (including reporting, then the police need to decide to investigate, then they need to find evidence, then the CPS has to decide that there's enough evidence to prosecute), culminating with twelve people, each with their own individual prejudices, and who weren't even there, deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not. In the final paragraph, Pro asks the readers what they would rather do. The issue here is not what you would rather do. The issue here is who's argument made the most sense and had the best evidence. Pro is trying to distract you by appealing to your emotions, and by suggesting that which argument you vote for is in some way going to have real impact. If you vote for Con's argument, all the paedophiles won't be killed. If you vote for my argument, all the paedophiles won't be put to work. You are not being asked to make a real decision. You are being asked to critically and rationally evaluate arguments. I thank the readers and my opponent for their time. So concludes my argument.