The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword

My opponent makes a relevant argument about desensitization but the rest of his arguments are non-topical distractions. I'll go over why they are off-topic first, and then I'll address the desensitization argument. == Off-topic arguments == From the "debate specific rules" in round 1: #2) Practicality is not a consideration. #3) The carrier of the sentence must take no pleasure in its administration. The risk of pleasure is outside the scope of the resolution. We are all aware that having judges execute prisoners is impractical. This debate is about the moral implications of such a policy, not the practicality of it. Con talks about less employment and deficit of judges and executioners. But these are all practical considerations. Con stumbles upon the second rule violation above as well. He flat-out claims that executioners should be simple-minded psychopaths pursuing a "passionate hobby" of killing. Con claims that an empathetic person would be either a) too gentle and help the prisoner escape, or b) too harsh. Part (a) is the point of the resolution. As Stark says "If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die." I merely want to transfer the power of execution to the decision-maker so that IF that person feels that the execution is unwarranted, they would think twice before sentencing that person to death. Part (b) is off-topic. I've noted that a person taking pleasure in killing is outside the resolution's scope. The final point that Con makes about people studying law just so they can kill people is also clearly outside the scope of the resolution. Con provides no reason why "passionate judges who accept executing as a bad part of the job" would be a rare commodity. Killing would only be a small, unpleasant part of the job. == Con case: Have psychopaths perform executions == Even if you buy his argument, having paid psychopaths perform executions devalues us as a society. In this scenario, the condemned are used as tools to pleasure the executioner. Con's claim that empathetic people will either set the prisoner free or torture them is unjustified. I gave an example in my round 2 of an executioner who was a fundamentally good person but never violated the law or freed his prisoners. A law-abiding citizen will follow the law regardless of their personal feelings. Con's claim that a psychopath would neither be too kind nor too harsh to the prisoner is categorically incorrect. Psychopaths by definition are characterized by uninhibited or bold behavior [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. In fact, it is more likely that a psychopath would torture and mutilate the prisoner than a good, law-abiding, empathetic executioner simply doing their job. == My case: Desensitization == Con misconstrues what I mean by desensitization. When judges or the jury do not have to deal with the gruesome aspect of an actual killing, it distances them from the killing and make it more likely that they will vote in favor of the killing. But faced with the prospect of actually having to perform the execution, they are exposed to the reality of their choices which makes it more likely that they would hesitate before making a decision in favor of killing. In Stark's words "people who hide behind paid executioners soon forget what death is." Con's argument is not a true solution. He claims that the status quo where the judge and jury are shielded from the execution is good and compares them to drugs addicts. The flaw here is that the judge and jury are still making decisions on other people's lives. They are merely protected from the actual experience of killing. Pro's analogy works like this: a fat person eats a lot of junk food. Let's say there are no mirrors in that person's house. My advocacy would be to install mirrors so the fat person can see how fat he is progressively becoming and work on getting fitter (or have periodic doctor's appointments where the doctor informs him about his obesity. Con's advocacy is not have mirrors because the more the fat person looks at himself in the mirror or meets his doctor, the less shocked he will be about his weight and thus put less effort into getting fit. That's not a real solution. That's shoving the problem under the rug. Each time he looks at himself, the reality of the situation hits him while Con's advocacy shields him from reality to continue eating his way to an early grave. The judge analogy works the same way. This isn't applicable to a jury because jury duty is a one-time service. However, my contention still applies because if the jury are expected to flip the switch, they will take that into account in their decision making.