A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

I'm new at this, here goes: I affirm the resolution, resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. Affirming, in this case, quite literally creates a just society. My opponent defines a just society as a group of individuals living in a community that are guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness. Assuming a just society is as my opponent describes it, approving of the death penalty is completely contrary to the definition. A just society should be guided by reason and justice. This means that a person who committed a punishable crime should not receive excessive punishment, but enough so that justice, fairness, and reason exists within the resolution. This means that a society gives a person what they deserve and not necessarily re-iterate what they did, especially in unmeasurable circumstances. The "eye for an eye" mentality is barbaric and should not be applied in serving a JUST society. Additionally, a just society would carefully examine the criminal and be positive that no injustice (such as excessive punishment) be served. In order for a just society to be possible, a society must give what each person deserves. Without this, it wouldn't be just, would it? My contention is that the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment as it does not give a person what he/she deserves. Therefore, the death penalty should not be used in a just society. The reason being that the act and the punishment can not be measured in terms of proportionality. Let's take a more simplified example. If I were to steal one hundred dollars from you, I would have committed a crime. You deserve one hundred dollars, correct? Wrong. Although in concrete terms this is perfectly justified, life isn't concrete, and neither is a just society. The 100 dollars, in your perspective, may have been the one extra $100 you needed to pay the late rent. In this circumstance, it can cause many detrimental events. You can have 30 days notice to leave the apartment. Your spouse may leave you. Quite possibly, your life can spiral into nothingness by something that can be defined in concrete terms. When deciding on a punishment, the proportionality can not be measured. Let me remind you that this society is just and gives a person what they DESERVES- not too much, not too little. If the victim was awarded one-hundred dollars, I would have been let go easily. Even-stevens, right? However, the unmeasurable circumstances may add on any number of 0s to that 100. This unmeasurable number may still be too little, but quite often it will be too much. This completely contradicts a just society and I would not get what I deserved. I would, in both cases, have too much or too little to pay up for. Following this idea of getting what you deserve, you need to look at the precursors and causes of the crimes in the beginning. A just society can not foresee or measure any conditions that would create an environment where a murder is possible. Factoring this into the punishment, a just society has an obligation to consider the responsibility it has on society and the way it functions and the reasoning behind the creation of a murderer. A baby is innocent, society makes him guilty. Because a criminal's causes and a victim's impact are unmeasurable, a criminal committing the crime should be exempt from the death penalty. For this reason, I vote affirmative on the resolution. Looking at my opponent's case, there are contradictory arguments and flaws that clearly support my contention. My opponent, in his second contention, states no other crime other than murder to the 1st degree is proportionate to the punishment of death. Again, the crime and punishment are clearly unmeasurable and can be void. Just because the extent of harm is concretely identical, there are many things to consider about justice. He also says just societies would not sentence the death penalty on an unproportional action, because the actor is not due the unnecessary harm. Again, the definition of a just society states nothing about the ability to measure fairness, but to enforce it. Therefore they CANNOT propose DP as it contradicts a just society. Something as un-concrete as death and murder are NOT measurable. My opponent states "because the criminal commits first degree murder, we can conclude that this individual was capable of mental comprehension, or the ability to understand their immoral action." Just because a person stabs someone to death does not mean he/she understands the morality behind his/her actions. When you were a child, your parents told you not to touch the stove. If you were unaware of the consequences (namely, fire), it means YOU are not able to comprehend the consequences of your actions. Furthermore, my contention states that many precursors and causes could lead to the act of murder. Even if society was the LEAST bit responsible, death for death is COMPLETELY unjust. My opponent is clearly assuming that the person committing the crime is of complete awareness when, in reality, any person knowingly capable of murder is being irrational to a certain degree. This irrationality is brought upon by society and mental illness. In the latter case, my opponent supports my argument by saying "we would not assign the death penalty to a mentally ill person incapable of rationality." If the plague of society, instead of genes, is the catalyst, how is the DP justified? In fact, the society has an increased sense of responsibility behind the criminal's action. They should be thinking "hey, we are manufacturing murderers." instead of "we should kill murderers." My opponent's third contention is clearly based on what the criminal believes and not what justice really is. I remind you, a just society relies on justice and fairness. Criminal's who volunteer for DP are obviously looking for a quick way out. Again, unmeasurable. This is relying on what the criminal wants, not what he/she deserves. My opponent's facts state that the motives behind it are insanity. If they were insane in the first place, would DP be justifiable or should consideration be placed in each and every case? All of my opponents contentions are faulty and his last argument is fighting for what the criminal wants, not what he deserves. In conclusion, my opponent's argument is flawed and the reasons I vote affirmative are justifiable and abolishing DP is the only way to achieve a just society.