The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

Thanks so much for the invitation, Bsh1! I'm afraid I'm running out of time, so this initial round will be unfortunately fairly short.Because we are discussing the morality and philosophy behind the death penalty, we therefore must assume in this hypothetical that there are other safe alternatives to the killing of the accused (such as prison). ---Violence against demonsMy opponent has brought up an important issue surrounding the death penalty--what if the other person is very, very bad? So bad that she or he deserves to die.There may indeed be such instances of humans who are so evil that they deserve to die. It is possible that these humans are so undignified that they seem even inhuman. There are many acts of wrongdoing in the world. This person seems to symbolize the worst of humanity--he is guilty of mass rape and murder. Sometimes people make light of serious crimes in by suggesting that the defendant 'feels remourse' for her/his actions. I thank Bsh1 for removing that factor from the equatoin. For this debate, we assume that there was no questoin of evidence and that the defendant does not seem remorseful in the least.My opponent has made the case that the defendant deserves to die. However, my opponent has missed something very important for this debate. In truth, the evilness of the defendant is not excuse for our own violence. The fact that the defendant is truly awful does not absolve us of our own morality--it does not excuse one's own violence. -We know that violence is wrong in most cases. In what cases might we exuse ourselves from avoiding violence? There are no straightforward answers, but some have proposed that when one's safety is in jeopardy, when one's family is in jeopardy, when one is not in their so-called "right mind," when one kills accidentally, that this makes violence acceptable. In this case, the executioners and the State have no such excuses. The defendant, as awful as he is, does not represent as threat to the safety of anyone, assuming suffiencent security (because we are discussing philosophy, such an assumption is appropriate). The State is calcuated and cunning--this is not a death of passion, nor was it an accident. The State is cold and precise in its execution.We could claim that the death penalty is a preventative measure, but that is not part of the debate; and besides, the statistics clearly do not support such claims.Perhaps we might absolve the State's violence as being an act of punishment. In psychology, punishment refers to a modification of behavior [1]. Rather than modifying a behavior, the death penalty removes all behavior forever. There are many effective means of punishment that are corrective that do not involve killing. What then may we say about the death penalty? What reason could the State have for enacting violence, if not for protection, accident, correction, or prevention? The answer of course is reciprosity. The State seeks neither change for the better nor morality, but revenge. Revenge is, of course, not a valid excuse for killing. There is no amount of immorality that excuses the State from acting immorally. Bsh1 seems to attempt to show that the defendant is so evil that violence is not immoral. In fact, the violence retains the same amount of morality--it seems (at least in this case) to be cold and heartless murder.[1] http://education-portal.com...;-This story is very similar to examples of violence everywhere. In order to make violence seem moral, many have demonized their enemies. This demonization has lead people to think that their violence is somehow excaptable, because they are killing the 'evil other.' The case is the same whether the 'evil other' is the heartless Jew, the American infidel, the American savage, or the monster criminal. It is a myth--a terrible myth--that the 'other' is so evil that murder is justified.---RebuttalsMy opponent has cited Hegel's and Locke's views on human dignity in order to show that the human dignity of the criminal is forfeit. I greatly respect both of those names; however, I fail to see why Hegel's and Locke's views on human dignity ought to be held over anyone elses. It would be helpful for me to see more of Hegel's and Locke's logic justifing their views, rather than just summaries of their views.Furthermore, the dignity of the criminal I think is not as central to the debate of whether or not State murder is justified than Bsh1 thinks. ---Thanks to Bsh1 for the debate, and thanks to the judges for being so generous with their time!