Those Convicted of Serious Offences should be used for Medicine

Much thanks to Cerebral_Narcissist for implementing this death penalty debate with a twist. The resolution in this debate is not the most clear but I will avoid the obvious semantic argument of misinterpreting my opponent's position as advocating that violent criminals should be consumed as a prescription medication. It would be helpful to have a clearer definition of "serious offences". The examples given include murder, rape and terrorism but it is unclear if these are the only crimes that my opponent advocates this penalty for, or exactly where he draws the line. I would personally include burglary, large scale fraud and arson as "serious offences" but I'm not sure if my opponent recommends the death penalty for these crimes. My opponent is arguing two distinct issues: 1. The death penalty should exist as punishment for "the most serious offences" (although the specific offences are not clearly defined.) 2. Criminals facing the death penalty should be experimented on and have their organs harvested for the sake of medical science. As the second case can not apply without the first, it is on the very existence of the death penalty that my arguments will focus, rather than the specific fate of those convicted, although I will examine the second issue as it arises. I will address my opponent's arguments before presenting my own. ---- 1:"Rights carry obligations. By committing such heinous offences the criminal should forfeit all rights." It is difficult to respond appropriately to this point without having a clear idea of what "rights" my opponent refers to. It seems that he accepts that some rights exists and his earlier use of the phrase "human rights" suggests that he may be referring to the rights set out in the UDHR. http://en.wikipedia.org... The whole point of 'universal' human rights is that they are universal and apply to all, without exception. To forfeit one's human rights is to forfeit one's humanity and I'm sure that Pro is not suggesting that people transform into another species when they commit terrible crimes. The most basic and fundamental of all rights is the right to life, execution clearly violates this. I have yet to hear of a Universal Declaration of Human Obligations. ---- 2: "Crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism are such terrible crimes that the criminal is unlikely ever to be 'rehabilitated' and should never be freed to endanger society." This is a baseless opinion presented with no evidence whatsoever. Many offenders, even those convicted of the most horrific crimes have been successfully rehabilitated. http://www.legaled.com... http://www.insideprison.com... Consider the hypothetical example of a woman who has been raped. The criminal justice system lets her down, the case is thrown out of court and her attacker walks free. She then plots and murders him. Is it fair to execute this woman? Is there not a good chance that she can be rehabilitated? Even if someone could not be rehabilitated at all then they don't necessarily need to ever be set free but this connects with the next point. ---- 3: "Permanent incarceration is a drain on the resources of the State and it is amoral to expect the taxpayer to support such people." It is a well documented fact that the death penalty is drastically more expensive than the alternative option of life imprisonment. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://answers.yahoo.com... "Whilst imprisoned there is always the chance that the prisoner may harm prison staff or escape back into society." Escape is extremely rare. Much,much rarer than wrongful conviction. Escape from maximum security prison is almost unheard of. Almost all escapes occur during work release or outdoor programmes and almost all escapees are recaptured straight away. http://www.dc.state.fl.us... Prison guards are adequately trained, equipped, resourced, paid and mean to defend themselves and other staff. ---- 4: "Simple execution fails to give anything back to society." Agreed. Complicated execution is not much better however. Linking back to the last point, life in prison with forced or voluntary labour can also be very productive and make substantial contributions to society. http://berkeley.edu... ---- 5. "Medical testing on animals raises ethical concerns" Agreed. "people are more concerned with the well being of an average rabbit than they are of a rapist." I am thoroughly unconvinced by this assertion. My opponent will need to back this up. I don't think the majority of people think animals have equivalent rights to humans. http://www.pulpless.com... ---- 6: "Medical testing on animals is of limited scientific value." This is true in the sense that there is a limit on how valuable any scientific endeavour is and of course the fact that there are existing ethical limitations on their treatment but there is a great deal of value in animal testing, particularly on animals with DNA patterns very similar to our own. "Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way" http://en.wikipedia.org... ---- 7: "The testing of new drugs or procedures on patients or paid volunteers is unethical, why should normal members of society be used as guinea pigs when we have a surplus of unproductive and worthless criminals?" It is with this point that the inconsistency of Pro's human rights argument becomes most exposed. If it is unethical to experiment on a paid volunteer as my opponent claims it is, then this is actually infringing on that individual's liberty. How can voluntary experimentation be unethical but forcing it on the unwilling be perfectly acceptable. Many criminals, including some murderers are perfectly 'normal' people. As noted in my responses to previous points, criminals can make productive and worthwhile contributions to society. Dehumanising them achieves nothing. ________ After addressing my opponent's points I have limited space with which to present my own arguments. I reserve the right to add new ones in the next round. 1. The risk of wrongful conviction. With the application of the death penalty it is inevitable that innocent people will be executed. Such an act by the state illegitimises the entire justice system and is morally abhorrent. For examples of such cases see these links: http://officeofstrategicinfluence.com... http://www.abanet.org... There is currently huge controversy in Texas over the execution of a man five years ago where forensic evidence is now found to be at fault. http://www.kwtx.com... ----- 2. Moral hypocrisy. The first example of a "serious offence" that my opponent offers is murder so let us focus for a moment on murder. Murder is a legal term but it is also a moral one that covers all kinds of intentional killing. http://en.wiktionary.org... A state that imposes the death penalty is claiming to condemn murder while carrying it out. Unless one believes that two wrongs make a right execution can not be justified. ---- 3. The Brutalisation effect. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that rather than acting as a deterrent, state execution can actually cause an increase in the homicide rate. http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu... http://www.prisonactivist.org... ---- Out of space, so I'll hand over to my opponent. Thanks.