Capital Punishment should be abolished as a form of legal punishment.

First off, I’d like to pose a question. If (as my fellow opposition says) that life (without parole) in prison is truly worse than capital punishment, then why would the latter be a better deterrent? As for which one abrogates more rights, I’d like to argue that there are no standard guidelines as to measuring whether one action is more morally acceptable than another. The simple amount of rights abrogated has nothing to do with how morally acceptable an action is. For example, abrogating the right to equal pay (Article 23) is vastly different from abrogating the right to life (Article 3), these aren’t equal just because both are abrogating exactly 1 human right. (1) I believe that certainly the right to life is above all in rights and everybody should be secured this right. Life is something very valuable, and cannot be regained. I shall start with my proper rebuttal now. Regarding Human Rights: As I said above, the sheer amount of rights abrogated has nothing to do with how severe one punishment is. As for myself contradicting myself, I would like to note the defining factors of Utilitarianism. I myself am a strong supporter of Utilitarianism and it is there for the greater good, and I’m sure voters will also agree. Utilitarianism is a theory in which the moral action that will result in most utility is the one that should be rightfully proclaimed, utility being pleasure or absence of pain. The first priority of which is to keep the innocent majority of society safe, constituting the government’s need to secure civilians’ right of security by keeping those convicted (in the current situation) either locked up until deemed possible to be released, locked up forever or killed. The right of security provides those in society the lack of pain. The second priority involved in the equation would be those convicted. The actions and punishments taken must be able to provide those convicted the highest amount of pleasure, may it be miniscule. One may say that it is the country and prisons’ goal to change those convicted through reform, but this is already achieved through the isolation from society. The next step would be to secure utility for them. I believe that keeping these convicted in prison will be the most utilitarian, they are still able to interact within the prison society and live their life. When executing somebody, they go through the worry and pain of dying, their relatives go through the pain of a loved one dying and it doesn’t really bring pleasure to the ordinary people either. This is what I believe should define what punishments are and one way of securing maximum utility is to abolish capital punishment. (13) “If this is the case, then why not execute the murderers instead?” Life without parole would also ensure they don’t do any additional harm; it reaches the same conclusion. Also please justify why the criminals clearly deserve this punishment, lots of murders are done by those who are mentally incapable or provoked; some of them are also executed. Please also refer to above. Regarding Pain Something being painful does not justify the need to abolish it, I agree. This changes when other just as effective alternatives provide the same result yet involve less pain. As mentioned above, I highly support utilitarian views and want to achieve the least amount of pain for everybody. This is why there are really nice prisons in Norway, it keeps the civilians safe and ensures the best possibly outcome after that for the convicted. Regarding Expense I would first like to say that the summation of all the prices involved has nothing to do with how expensive each is. When somebody is convicted, sentencing them to life without parole (including all expenses until death) is cheaper than the death penalty. We are paying to keep the convicted alive because it is cheaper than to kill them. Thus, Capital Punishment is indeed more expensive than other alternatives such as life without parole by a lot (see above argument). “Prisons are also cruel.” Please see above. Why are there some nice prisons in Norway then? This is stereotypical. “What I don’t understand is the fact that” This is highly confusing as the opposing has just cut off the argument there. There continues to be a paragraph break. Readers and voters please note. “Why can’t the government abrogate the right to life” Again, see above. I am supportive of the least amount of pain and most pleasure for everybody. The right to life is the most important right of human rights. Regarding Capital Punishment being a deterrent The evidence you have given is basically cherry-picked from those that show otherwise. Studies from Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock, The National Research Council, and much more recent finding have shown that Capital Punishment is an ineffective deterrent. Even if the studies were to be somewhat accurate, note that they are from a long time ago. The Isaac Ehrlich study was done in 1973, some 43 years ago. The other study from Ernest van den Haag was also done in 1969, being 47 years ago. These studies from nearly 50 years ago and prove to be very insignificant in our modern 21st century society. As you can see below, even those opinions from 1985 have changed, from 62% supporting Capital Punishment to 34% in 2006, this means that data and reports from 1960s and 1970s are certainly inaccurate and invalid nowadays. (14, 15) In contrast to my opposing’s point, the lack of capital punishment is actually benefiting the society even more. Please see data below. This means that the lack of capital punishment has been positive in reducing crime even before 1990s, now averaging at a near 40% difference when compared to those states which do have capital punishment. This is also not affected by a geographical bias as neighboring states have also shown a decrease. (16) Conclusively, the lack of capital punishment (or the prospect of life without parole) has resulted in a decrease in murders, thus capital punishment isn’t a deterrent and the lack of it (prospect of alternatives) is indeed one. I would also like to note that the opposing has not sourced the 2 studies that has been stated. This also prevents me from verifying the evidence the opposition has provided. Regarding order of society and Retribution If you want to bring morals into the problem, why not quote The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is a fundamental rule in lots of religious texts and is generally followed worldwide. The official definition of this is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This rule is the fundaments of what my fellow opposition is trying to state, my opposition saying so otherwise would be highly contradictory would void their own argument. This is, however a 2-way street. According to what the opposing has said in relation to the Golden Rule, the government killing people would simply suggest that those killers should do so in revenge and figuratively kill the government. Since in US’s case, the government is a democracy of the people of the United States, the killers are effectively supposed to kill the people of the United States as the United States government has killed the killers. Note that I do not support this viewpoint and wanted the opposition to know that by implying their arguments, it would be implying what I just stated above. (17) Retribution, in my example given referred as to the Golden Rule, is highly flawed and wrong, thus isn’t a valid argument against the abolishment of capital punishment. Rebuttal aside, I will go on to additional arguments and finally a conclusion. To emphasize on my utilitarianism point made above, there is always the slight chance somebody innocent will be executed. Death is not reversible, prison sentences are. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future if capital punishment were not abolished. An example would be Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed for the death of his 3 children and later found innocent. (18) Several cases have arisen in various places including the United Kingdom, PRC, ROC, Australia, Ireland, and the United States throughout history. A recent study showed that 4% of people in death row are innocent. (19) ~ To conclude, I have proved that capital punishment is ultimately barbaric, brutal, and is not only against Human Rights but also against a utilitarian goal. It was also shown that Capital Punishment is also wildly expensive, morally incorrect, leads to possible execution of innocent people, and is done on behalf of the people of the country. I have also proved against capital punishment being a deterrent but the lack of it being beneficial; and retribution being highly flawed. On top of all that, my fellow opposition has also submitted incomplete arguments, has common misleading grammatical errors, fails to source data and ironically yet carelessly forfeited the debate by stating that “This motion shall stand” in the previous round. This motion shall indeed stand and vote pro for the reasons stated above. This being the conclusion, I would like to thank the opposition for the fair and reasonable debate and would urge voters to vote pro. Thank you. Sources: (13): http://www.iep.utm.edu...; (14): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (15): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...; (16): http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...; (17): http://www.iep.utm.edu...; (18): http://camerontoddwillingham.com...; (19): https://en.wikipedia.org...;