Resolved: Capital Punishment in Texas is Unjust.

As to the order of things, I suppose since my opponent started with a scenario, then contentions, I will reply in kind with an opening statement followed by my rebuttals. Opening Remarks: I will openly admit that I am against the death penalty in ALL cases. I believe that violence begets violence and that there is no reason to kill someone after the fact. One senseless death is enough. As with a man on trial for a capital offense, I will attempt to provide just enough evidence to put reasonable doubt in your mind (the audience) as to whether or not to pull the metaphorical trigger (sentencing a man to the death penalty). Remember, a man’s life is at stake. Definitions: Safety: The condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss.1 Justice: The quality of being just, impartial, or fair.2 Respect: High or special regard. Esteem.3 Indignation: anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean.4 Rebuttal to Contention #1: How does one improve safety if the crime has already been committed? In the scenario given, your family isn’t any safer because the murderer was convicted and sentenced to die. The notion that anyone in that situation is safer is a fallacy. Why then does my opponent want them to die? Surely it’s not for the actual safety of society because the safety of further ‘victims’ is no longer in question if the criminal is in jail. There is one point, however, that I completely agree on with my opponent. “The respect for human life is a characteristic of a civilized society. ” My opponent is correct, yet holds a contradictory view every time he would elect to execute a prisoner and show that, in fact, we are a very uncivilized nation (with regard to the death penalty). My opponent also says, “We are going to inflict pain and suffering to an equal degree upon them, while keeping in mind their morality. ” Again, my opponent disregards all notions of a ‘civilized’ society and instead opts for more ‘pain and suffering’. Rebuttal to Contention #2: There are two fundamental problems with the “eye for an eye” mentality. Firstly, the ‘murderers’ of whom my opponent speaks may or may not be actually guilty of committing the crimes they were accused of. This presents its own moral dilemma. Is it possible for society to punish, by death, those that they deem ‘guilty’ to satisfy the conscience of the collective but perhaps condemn an innocent person to die unknowingly? Of course it is and knowing this fact, my opponent cannot possibly expect a ‘morally just’5 outcome all the time. Second, my opponent states that, “Deserved punishment protects society morally by respecting this order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution, the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good…retribution, is the primary purpose of just punishment. ” The virtue of indignation (see definition) is also a false-notion. How can the killing of one innocent person be rectified by the killing of another? Unlike jail or other punishments, the death penalty is permanent. This IS revenge, plain and simple, and is that expectable? If my family was killed in the manner described by my opponent, I would want to kill the person responsible as well. Just because my family was killed does not make me any less vengeful. Nor does it change my intent to some noble cause. Again, the question arises: Is this person actually responsible for the atrocities that befell my family? Can I be sure? No. No you cannot and it is this doubt that would cause any reasonable person to vote Pro in this debate. Can you really live with an innocent person’s death on your conscience? Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] See my opponents’ definition of ‘unjust’ and my own for ‘justice’