The Death penalty is a just form of punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

I'll defend my own case then move to refute my opponents. My Response: I'm guessing you are unfamiliar with Kant's works, but I'll refute this attack anyway. Essentially, the criminals are held to their own actions. We, as a government are giving which they have set up. We are all individuals, the criminals have set the standard of death, thus they deserve death. We are essentially giving them what they want. We are not being "unforgiving", but we are showing that killing cannot be done in society. The government cannot give the criminal life for death that he has brought onto an innocent of society. I also do not think that it is wrong. I believe the death penalty is right. However, I believe that the criminal must take full culpable responsibility for their own actions. "Is it really equal worth though? Say the victim was anti-death penalty, do we then still execute his attacker? We have no way of knowing whether they would have changed their minds either way after they were murdered for example. If they would not want the person that killed them to be executed (and not necessarily in a Gandhi way, they may think they will suffer more in prison then die) then by executing them, we are in fact dishonoring the victim's wishes. Also, what if the perpetrator is suicidal? Is that equality to kill a person who wants to die/is not that bothered by it, to counter someone who didn't want to die?" My Response: It doesn't matter if the person was anti-death penalty. The criminal deserves the same worth he gave his victim. Which is no worth. Allowing a criminal to life, while their victim is dead, is a crime in and of itself. Essentially, it is showing that the government values the life of a criminal more then that of the victim. you also like the idea of subjectivity. For this, human worth is objective. Killing without full retribution devalues the human worth of the innocent. "There is no contract, as with balancing justice, I contend you are being scientific in a situation that is inherently unscientific (it's very hard to be scientific when you are dealing with individual persons, we acknowledge that everyone is different, yet strive to treat them the same in the "interest of fairness")." My Response: I'm guessing you aren't familiar with Locke's philosophy as well.... Locke who is the basis of enlightened democratic government philosophy theorized that in a democracy/republic the state and people make a tacit agreement. The agreement, aka the Social Contract explains that the government has an obligation to it's people to distribute justice. when a criminal kills, they lose their right to life. Also, when the criminal is born into society and if they keep living there, they agree to the contract. When they commit a crime they have broken it. Thus its the obligation for the government to take that right away. They forfeit a right for committing a crime. "A contract is an AGREEMENT (http://dictionary.reference.com......), if the perpetrator was to actually (provably) state that if he/she ever killed someone that they consent to being put to death, then I would agree." My Response: The Social Contract is a contract between people and state. Also, the criminal does indeed agree to this agreement. According to Locke if a person does not leave their country then the submit to the contract. When they leave, the contract is let go. Its all about free will. "There is no "obligation", there is a clear choice. That politicians use the death penalty (pro and con) as a way of distinguishing themselves from other politicians to rally votes behind them is the closest to an "obligation" the government has, and that is an obligation to their own career." My Response: No offense, but you seem to be confused with polticial philsophy with political application. The obligation is an objective obligation when people live in a society. The government has certain obligations, and so does the people. Politicians increasing their own career have nothing to do with this. "I agree but there is a big difference between removing from society and removing from life. I fully support life in prison MEANING life in prison, no parole, no TV etc. Four walls, food and a lot of time to reflect on why they shouldn't have committed their crime." My Response: Ok, and what does the victim have left? Can the victim watch TY, fall in love, eat, enjoy the world. No. Sadly. The victim ahs lsot everything, and then the criminal has the right to maintain that which has been lost to the victim. Again, there is no "contract" but... My Response: Of course there is. We as people agree to living in a particular society. You are very ignorant with political philosophy/science. If you universalize your actions, then we have the right to do what ever. Laws mean nothing. "That is what distinguishes us from them, I would rather not stoop to their level or anywhere near it." My Response: It is not about stooping to their level. The resolution has the inherent value of justice. That is what the debate is about. Giving each what they are due. "If they are put in solitary confinement 23 hours a day for the rest of their life I support it. There are other ways to protect society. If we think like that then we might as well execute anyone involved in a serious violent/sexual crime." My Response: I never debated consquentialism as a point of mine. I am debating from a deontological perspective. Therefore, extend all my arguments. His attacks never touched upon the actul points behind them. Going to his case: 1) This is only true because the appeals process is so long. Also, even if it is more expensive, good things don't come cheap. Cleaning the earth costs billions of money, but we still do it. 2) The bill to make the death penalty an option for child rapists has been struck down. also, the law is based on proportionality. Stealing a car does not warrant the death penalty. 3) The killer didn't think of that when he killed the victim. The government is essentially creating equality between the victim/murderer and victim's family/criminals family. 4) Governmental Retribution is not revenge. Revenge is a personal retribution. The government doesn't have hate as the motivator for the death penalty. It uses it to achieve proportionate justice, equality, to show show how some crimes warrant death for how evil they are. i.e. killing. (According to the US Supreme Court when its reinstated the Death Penalty) 5) Ok, however the death penalty wasn't specifically made to deter crime. Deterrence of crime is an after effect. It it happens, great. Also, deterrence has yet to be proven or disproved. In contrast to your UK point. Singapore holds the most frequent executions of killers, and they have a 2% crime rate. Also, in Texas, since the DP's reinstatement. Killing has gone down 30%. 6) No the death penalty is driven by people who want to see criminals get what they deserve and to archive justice. Were Kant and Locke ill-informed citizens of their country? This attack about citizens and politicians isn't warranted at all. It's only coming from an assertion from someone who cares more about the life of the criminal then the human worth of the victim. Drop his contentions.