The death penalty is just

I affirm: The death penalty is just [Definitions] 1. Just: giving each their due 2. Death Penalty: execution; putting a condemn person to death [Contention] Contentions: I. Kant's Scale of Justice Argument According to Kant, when one kills another person, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death. The criminal has universalized the action of death and has tipped the scale of justice. Thus the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized, i.e. death, and put the scale back into balance. The equality between victim and criminal must also be realized. The government must put equal worth between the victim and the criminal. Therefore, to maintain the balance, the government has an obligation to kill the criminal. Only then, has the scale of justice been balanced. II. Locke's Right Violation Argument/Social Contract Theory According to Locke, when one person kills another then the killer loses their right to life as well. The Social Contract explains that it's an imperative obligation of the government to give the killer the death penalty because he/she has lost the right to live in society. Essentially, the killer has broken the contract between himself and the government. Thus, the government has the right to remove this person from society. The government would be violating the contract if they did not because: A) They would be letting a killer keep the right that was taken from another member of society. B) They could possibly be putting other members of society at risk as well. [Rebuttal] "Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing is wrong?" I belive that is true. Our death penalty system is designed to execute criminals who have murdered a person or maybe even more. Their crime is the act of killing people. So we kill them to show that they should not kill? Where's the sense in that? --> Simple we kill people to show that killing is wrong because the action is done on a negative reciprocal basis. I.e. the government does not kill for the sake of killing, like the killer, but only as an application to distribute justice. This argument could be valid if the government was malicious about killing, but it isn't. --> (Turn) Even if you agree with my opponent, his logic can be universalized against the whole justice system. Essentially, all punishments are proportionate is some way. Why is it just to kidnap kidnappers, and put them in jail against their will. Why is it just to take money away form people that steal? The government is justified in doing this on the basis of negative reciprocal action, and proportionality. "Also, what if they haven't even killed anybody? There have been many accounts of innocent citizens who have been executed." --> Ok what if that is true, that doesn't make the punishment less justified. Unjust application does not equal unjust principals. --> (Turn) According to my opponents logic, an innocent who died in jail makes the punishment of jail unjust. --> furthermore, my opponent has an unwarranted assertion. He just says what if an innocent was killed. He never proves anything. "The UN opposes the death penalty. End of discussion." --> Ok.....the UN also was against taking action during the genocide in Rwanda. Does that make it right? --> My opponent is making a fallible organization, infallible. "The New Testament tells us that we should be like God, and that we should follow Jesus' example and show mercy. Now you probably think, "Did the killer show mercy?" No. That's wrong. So should we condescend to that level where we show no mercy and kill? NO!" --> Parable: Jesus said to his disciples that the workers who took advantage of the son, and killed him, deserved to be put to death. --> Old Testament: "He who shedeth mans blood, he too shall have his blood shed." --> Religion is a mute point. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.