The death penalty should be legalized

I’m looking forward to it! I will begin by presenting my opening arguments, and then I’ll wait for Con’s in the next round. I specified that the arguments must not be restricted to any jurisdiction, so Con is welcome to use any contextual references given that they constitute the norm and not the exception. The Judicial Argument In law, there are a few core purposes of sentencing, including (but not limited to): punishment, deterrence, reformation, protection, and reparation. (Source 1) I will begin by examining how the death penalty works in relation to these. A criminal judgment punishes an offender for his unruly conduct by pronouncing on him a sentence proportionate to the gravity of his crime. Here, the death penalty works. This punishment is reserved for the most serious of crimes, including murder, kidnapping, genocide, espionage and treason. This is, in essence, a form of “justice” for society, which has suffered as a result of the crime. A criminal judgment aims to deter the rest of society from committing similar crimes. The death penalty captures what many people fear tremendously – death, and thereby disincentivises them to commit such a crime. There is little evidence to suggest that this has achieved success in many Western countries, which practice long and drawn out death row processes. However, countries which practice the death penalty in a quick and sure way have seen much greater success, as their citizens are more likely to treat the threat of death seriously. A criminal judgment aims to reform the criminal, or ensure that he/she does not commit the crime again. Here again, the death penalty succeeds. The death penalty is reserved exclusively (with a few cases falling through the cracks) for criminals who display zero remorse and zero potential for reformation. Coupled with the severity of the crime, optimal social safety can only be achieved by taking his/her life. A criminal judgment aims to protect the rest of society. While many may argue that this can be done in jail, the state has a duty to safeguard other criminals as well, who have been temporarily deprived of their liberty. The death penalty is the surest way to know that a criminal cannot recommit an act of comparable severity against a civilian or a fellow inmate. Finally, a criminal judgment aims to provide some form of reparation to the victim(s). Criminals facing the death penalty have usually commited a crime that deprived their victim(s) indefinitely of life or liberty. A judge therefore attempts to offer their victims and/or their families some form of reparation for their suffering. Now, it is important to note that while judges aim to fulfil as many of the above criteria as they can, it is unnecessary for all them to be fulfilled in pronouncing a sentence of death. A judgment may instead be focused on any one of these. For my opponent to successfully prove that the death penalty should be made illegal, therefore, he has to prove that none of these are worthy reasons to deliver such a sentence. The “plea bargain” argument Plea-bargaining is used in many countries, wherein a criminal is encouraged to cooperate with police investigations in return for a more lenient sentence. When the punishment at hand is death, the criminal has the greatest possible incentive to help the police. The benefit this provides to society is immense, because it enables the police to crack down on the roots of the problems. This is especially effective in dismantling criminal organizations, including drug rings, vice rings and the like. As a result of this, many deep-rooted problems can be resolved. The “dignity” argument Several people have argued that the death penalty fails to accord life with dignity, simply because the state is taking a life. However, the death penalty fundamentally honours human dignity by treating the criminal as a free moral actor and holding him accountable for his decisions. It must be noted that criminals who were not in sound mental state at the time of the crime have mitigated sentences. Society works on the principle that each person receives what is due to him. This order is disrupted by criminals. It is therefore a direct consequence of a rational person’s actions that he faces the death penalty. The state has no obligation to forgive someone who took someone else’s life or liberty in a “moment of weakness” or for any similar reason. The argument of “inhumanity” Several people have argued that the death penalty is an inhumane, brutal punishment in practice. For all who are proponents of it, however, it must be accepted in practice as well. If the practice is found to be too brutal, we have to find ways to mitigate its brutality. Several jurisdictions are already in the practice of doing so, by finding more painless ways to end the lives of criminals. I have, thus far, presented some arguments in favour of the death penalty. I look forward to those of my opponent. P. S. 18Karl, I have had to make sudden plans (as recently as last night) to travel overseas as a result of a mixture of circumstances. During this trip, I may not have access to Internet and so may not be able to upload my argument in time. If that is the case, I apologise most sincerely, and hope that we can re-continue this debate when I return. Of course, I hope that it does not get to that. All the best! Sources: 1. . http://www.legislation.gov.uk... 2. . http://sixthformlaw.info... 3. Response letter to the New England Journal of Medicine regarding an article titled "When Law and Ethics Collide — Why Physicians Participate in Executions," by Atul Gawande, MD July 6, 2006 4. "Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice," OrthodoxyToday. org Aug. /Sep. 2004 5. District Attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon "The Myth of Innocence,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Mar. 31, 2005