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

I also thank the judges, the readers, and my opponent for this debate. I am excited to participate in this, my first time being in a debate tournament.I will now address the statements made by my opponent in his opening round and I will also introduce my own contentions within the framework of his numbered points (using letters) in order to make the debate easier to read and follow. ======================================================================= What is a just society? A just society is a society that administers justice. If a society is merely "working towards" administering justice then it is only a "mostly just" society at best. It will not have reached the point of being a "just society". One is an idealistic point of view while the other is a realistic point of view. ======================================================================= 1. The Right to Life A. While it is true that in America we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property), these rights can certainly be withdrawn. In fact, in the legal system, that is the way that ALL punishments work! Rights ARE taken away: They either take away a person's life, liberty or property. Think for a moment about that. If a person is speeding, he is penalized with a fine (taking away his property). If a person commits a serious crime they will be thrown in jail (taking away his liberty). And ultimately, if a person commits the most abominable act and murders someone, then he is given the maximum penalty, capital punishment (taking away his life). B. If a society does not kill the murderer they are in effect saying that the murderer's life is worth more than the victim's life. BUT People are granted EQUAL justice under the law. So how could one life be worth more than another person's life? the answer is that it couldn't. Therefore, for justice to be fulfilled exactly it must be "life for life". Which leads finally to the reality that if a society is to truly be just, then it must exercise justice by punishing those who deserve to be punished, and to the degree which they have offended and broken society's laws. "First, there is equality before the law. This means that every man's case is tried by the same law governing any particular case. Practically, it means that there are no different laws for different classes and orders of men [as there were in ancient times]. The definition of premeditated murder is the same for the millionaire as for the tramp. a corollary of this is that no classes are created or recognized by law. Second, the Declaration refers to an equality of rights....Each man is equally entitled to his life with every other man; each man has an equal title to God-given liberties along with every other. (Clarence Carson, The American Tradition [Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.:Foundation for Economic Education, 1970], pp.112-13.) ======================================================================== 2. The Costs of the Death Penalty A. What the "right" thing to do is not based on how much a thing costs. If we are to consider what is "just" (as is stated in the resolution) then the cost is not a factor. Sometimes, (and perhaps many times) it costs more to get things done ethically rather than compromising. For example, consider the quote "Millions for defense but not a cent for tribute". http://www.time.com... This quote expresses the idea that it is not always the right thing to do to pay people off to make things easier for yourself. In this example giving in to extortion from the pirates in Barbary was not seen as the right thing to do, even though it would have been cheaper. B. Life imprisonment is NOT as effective as capital punishment, but my opponent asserted that it is: PRO (Round 1 Contention 2) "...when life imprisonment is just as effective as the death penalty." I would point out that sometimes prisoners who have murdered others have be allowed out of prison on parole and they have killed again. Further, there will ALWAYS be a chance for the prisoner to escape. (it is a documented fact that escapes from prisons have happened). I will post one example here for a source but certainly many similar stories could be posted: "GRADY, Ark. (AP) Two convicted murderers put on guard uniforms and walked out of an Arkansas prison during a shift change, officials said Saturday as they searched for the men....Both men were serving life sentences without the possibility of parole at the prison about 60 miles southeast of Little Rock." http://www.cbsnews.com... The only way to guarantee with certainty that the crime will not happen again is to enforce capital punishment. In a just society, one life taken by a murderer could perhaps be answered by one life being paid by the murderer BUT there is NO possible way that it could be "just" to let a murderer kill two or more people, because according to justice it could never be repaid. (Two or more lives will always be a larger total than one life- The one life the murderer can repay with). Also, a murderer would not even have to escape the prison in order to kill again, he could simply murder another prisoner in the prison, what more could be done to him as punishment if there was not capital punishment? He would already have received the maximum penalty allowed by law. In 2001 and 2002, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported last year, 129 inmates in state prisons and jails were victims of homicide. http://www.boston.com... ====================================================================== 3. Execution of Innocents A. Capital PUNISHMENT deals with the punishment, not if someone is guilty or innocent. Trials are divided into 2 phases: 1. Determining guilt or innocence 2. Sentencing Once the sentencing is taking place it has already been determined that the person is guilty. If there is ANYTHING that put the person's guilt in question BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT then the person should not be convicted. Therefore during the sentencing portion (where capital PUNISHMENT) falls, it has already been made clear that the person is guilty. Therefore, technically, capital PUNISHMENT does not deal with guilt or innocence, only the punishment phase of the legal system. If guilt is not clear then there are lesser charges which can be brought against the perpetrator such as murder in the second degree, or some offense that does not allow the death penalty B. My opponent's study took place in 1987. Presumably, the cases which it examines were even older than that. But even in that world and time the citizens found it to be a just principle to have capital punishment, even though they didn't have forensics or modern science . In fact, capital punishment goes back to the beginning of time: Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. http://scriptures.lds.org... However, in today's world, DNA and forensics evidence is being used, and the certainty of the guilt of the accused party has increased many fold. ===================================================================== I thank the judges and the readers and my opponent and wish him good luck in the next round.