The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

Thanks for the case arguments. I will respond.---AutonomyPro concedes that killing is generally wrong, but suggests that the only reason that this is wrong is that they have the right to life. In fact, the idea of right to life being the ONLY reason for one's death is certainly a simplification. In fact, the killing of another is the complete reduction of another's personhood an atonomy. It forces the killed individual to never make a decision again.Pro claims that the defendant decided to die. However, this is obviously not the case, as we are not dealing with a suicide. Unlike the runner scenario that Pro described (in which the winner expected a prize), the defendant does not want to be killed. Obviously, it is the law that has prescribed a sentense for the defendants' actions, and not the defendant himself (else the defendant might be left to commit suicide, which is not the topic of debate). Pro claims that the most fundimental feature of humanity is their autonomy. If Pro's logic is correct, then we must realize that the destruction of all of the defendant's future ability to choose--the most extreme reduction of the defendant's autonomy--is violated. Thus, the death penalty (still using Pro's logic) would therefore violate the most vital parts of humanity--their autonomy.-Retribution:Pro suggests that it would be insulting and demeaning not to the defendant not to provide some sort of retributive response. My position is that the defendant WOULD recieve punishment--but that punishment wouldn't be death. (The defendant might recieve life in prison, or a similar sentence). Thus, my position would not be "demeaning" or "dehumanizing" toward the defendant, because he is recieving punishment for his crimes. I think, however, that there could be nothing more dehumanizing than literally rendering a person into a nonhuman state. The effects from violating the right ot retribution vs. right to life is like comparing a slap to the face to a bullet in the chest. Pro is very concerned with figurative dehumanization, but the murder of the defendant is literal, complete, and final dehumanization. The defendant cannot act as a moral agent if he is dead.Thus, even if one were to accept Pro's assertion that the right of retribution is important, it is clear that the right to life is much more imporant; thus, one would need to value the right to life over the right to retribution (something the defendant doesn't even want). However, the choice does not need to be made, because there is no violation of the right of retribution.Furthermore, Pro did not reubut my counterexplanations for the importance of retribution. Thus, there is no reason left to buy that the right to retribution even matters.-Pro suggests that ONLY if rights are violated has a wrong occured. As I pointed out earlier, it is not always clear whether a violation of rights has occured, but still clear that a wrong has occured. Pro dropped this point. Furthermore, rights are social constructs--the rights of black persons were radically different in the 1700-1800s USA than now. Rights change--we therefore cannot rely on them to determine whether a wrong has been committed. Furthermore, the rights analysis is an old-fasioned philosophy, completely demolished by contemporary philsophers and moral relatvism [http://www.iep.utm.edu...]. Therefore, there is no such security in knowledge of rights and their violations that could justify murder. Rights are far too controversial.The question of what constitutes rights is highly controversial, and is usally left up to authorities to define. In fact, the Declaration of Independance as the inspiration for laws and politics of the United States has an important part in the creation of these rights. The Declaration of Indepedance demands that it is impossible for the right to life to be given up, as previously mentioned; thus, there is at least a strong case for the defendant's right to life being intact. Even if one doesn't buy that the defendant's right to life is maintained, one must admit that the defendant's right to life is still at least questionable, which casts doubt on Pro's ability to define a right and wrong.-Pro dropped that the only reason for the death penality is reciprocity (revenge).-Moral wrongPro essentially dropped the argument that killing is wrong in general. The defendant is being prosecuted for murder: Yet, Pro suggests that the State should engage in that same moral wrong. I have already pointed out that the defendant could easily be punished by alternative means, so the reason that is left for killing is revenge--which Pro effectively admits. There is no need to kill, so what must be driving the kill is a want. The fact that the sentence is not the actual act of the crime isn't a problem for reciprocity. The defendant raped, but obviously having the defendant be raped before death is wrong, pointless, and casts guilt on the one's involved. Does not the dealth penalty elicit the same wrongness, the same pointlessness, and the same guilt on thoe invovled?-DemonizationPro dropped my entire analysis on the need to reject his demonizing and violence-provoking rhetoric. He drops that his rhetoric demonizes, and drops that the demonization ought to be rejected. Thus, his entire case is already in a sense conceded. If Pro refuses to defend his case, there is no debate. We cannot reward debaters from droppnig arguments; I must therefore win by default. -"Contradiction?"I don't make any contradiction. I merely point out that IF Pro is correct that rights are the only thing that matters, then I still win the debate because the defendant has the right to life. IF Pro is incorrect, as I argue, the Pro's entire case falls flat, because his 'justice' is reliant on the idea that NOT killing the criminal is somehow violating the criminals life. I never said that revenge was immoral. I said that revenge alone is not a valid excuse for killing. I'm sorry for my being unclear. "There is no amount of immorality that excuses the State from acting immorally" does not mean anything close to "revenge is immoral," as Pro suggests.--Pro completely dropped my points about why Locke and Hume should be considered in this debate, being after all so old. He further refused to justify humans being reduced to their autonomy other than pointing out that humans aren't chairs. The fact is, Pro's case is completely full of holes. Hume, who is central to Pro's debate, did not believe that humans could escape cause and effect, and thus do not have full autonomy [http://www.academia.edu...]. Furthermore, Hume ardently OPPOSED the death penalty [http://autocww.colorado.edu...]! Pro's own philosophers work against his case. It is no wonder I am confused about his case, which he has refused to clarify for the second time.