On the Death Penalty

I will begin by thanking the eloquent young Tarzan for providing the opportunity to debate this oft-debated issue. My young opponent grounds his argument on the claim that humans have the basic rights of life, defense, and the right to redress of grievances for harm to one's self or one's companions. For now I will not address the validity of these claims. His second premise is that, based on the "social contract", society has the right to defend itself against criminals. This I will take as valid as well. However, I negate his claim that it follows that the death penalty is a suitable defense. I am of the firm belief that Pro is not in favor of a system similar to the hypothetical situation he outlines, so I will refrain from pointing out its obvious absurdities. ----------- My opponent states >>"I don't think anyone contests the notion that there is a basic right to live. In order to exercise this right, we must have a right to defend that life, either by incapacitation or fatality."<< The right to defend oneself does not necessarily include the ability to kill someone who transgresses on his rights. A person does not have the lawful right to kill another for stealing a purse. Likewise, even if person A attempts to murder person B, person B only has the right to kill person A if he is in immediate danger. That means, if person A is unsuccessful in his attempt, person B cannot lawfully kill person A several days later. Take the recent case against Joe Seals for instance. He claimed self defense when he shot Robert Ellis at point blank range. Mr. Ellis had no weapons and was not an immediate threat to Mr. Seals. Mr. Seals alleged that he felt he was in danger because he had seen Mr. Ellis attack other men with baseball bats and even choke them. He was found guilty of manslaughter. (source: http://www.nytimes.com...) Outcomes like this one are the norm because the right to self defense is legally defined to include only a proportionate response to the immediate danger. Simply stated, if a person is not in the immediate danger of being killed, that person does not have the right to kill an assailant. This is an important distinction, especially when addressing my opponents next claim. (Note: I will accept this as common knowledge unless my opponent wishes to challenge this point.) >>"Thus, society has a defensive right to exact the death penalty on those who would violate the rights of members of the society."<< As has been shown, the right to self defense applies to the immediate danger of a situation. Society and the state are clearly not in immediate danger by the apprehended criminal, even "murderers, rapists, and child molesters." Society and the state have the power and the wherewithall to protect itself from such criminals merely by incarcerating them for the remainder of their life. To go beyond those means and kill the unarmed, helpless criminal would be to violate the legal definition of the right to self defense. -------- With the right to self defense proven to not include the state-sponsered murder of a criminal, my opponent will likely attempt to activate the third right he claims for the state - the right to redress of grievances. However, redress of grievances does not give a victim the right to enact a full campaign of vengence. The victim does not have the right to define his own limits. Obviously a husband whose wife has been murdered does not have the right to kill her murderer. Similarly, the victim of a drunk driving accident does cannot redress his grievance by stabbing the drunk driver in the kidney. Without limits, chaos would ensue. The same concept applies to society and the state. Clearly revenge and redress have their limits. CONCLUSION My opponent's case rests on the flimsy basis that murderers, rapists, and child molesters deserve the death penalty because the state and society have the rights to delf defense and the right to redress of grievances. I have shown that these rights have limits. I very much look forward to an exciting second round of debate.