Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

Introduction "The resolution maintains that the death penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers and killers specifically. That is to say that those in favor of the death penalty typically justify the extreme taking of one's life because the one convicted has also taken the life of another. It is 'an eye for an eye' case here, but that mentality doesn't stand." My Response: No, the affirmative does not stand behind the phrase: "An eye for an eye." That is legal equivalence. The affirmative upholds legal proportionality and proportionate equality. However, in the argument of killing. Killing can only be punished with an equal punishment to it, since nothing else matches. Killing is the worst crime/act possible. Thus, the worse punishment is necessary. Killing violates every right of the victim. Therefore, the government must do the same to the criminal because if they do not, then they have violated the human worth of the victim. Essentially the criminal deserves more rights and more worth then the victim. Contention 1: Hypocrisy My Response: First off, the government is not an individual and thus should not be held to all the same moral standards. As I have brought up before, killing is the only crime that warrants the same action. No punishment is great enough to: A) Punish and B) Hold equality between victim and criminal. Your finger example. No, it does not warrant the exact action. Why? Because no other rights have been violated. Paying the victim is enough because it hurts your monetarily, will pay for the medical bills of the victim, and show that there is still equal worth between victim and criminal. I.e. the loss of one finger for the loss of a great amount of money. You then bring up cruelty. 8th Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment. The philosopher behind this was Beccaria. He is known for the statement: "The punishment must fit the crime." According to Beccaria, a punishment is only cruel, not based on the action, but based on how much the punishment exceeds the crime. Example, giving the death penalty for someone who robbed. A crime is only cruel, if the punishment exceeds and is unwarranted for that crime. Your idea of cruelty of punishment with the idea of cutting one's finger off is more cruel then the death penalty. This is flawed for it wasn't the idea psoed by Beccaria and the 8th Amendment. Interestingly however. Beccaria was against the death penalty. But not for the justice it brings, but rather possible negative effects on society. However, remember we are talking about the justice of it. You are looking at the action rather then the proportionality of crime and punishment. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE You bring up religious individuals who believe that only God can take away life. First, according to St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine (probably 2 of the greatest church fathers/doctors in the Church), the Death Penalty is very warranted by the government. According to them, the crime of killing is so horrible, that only God can truly punish that action. Thus the government must kill them to send them to hell. Also, most Protestants and Muslims are supporters of the death penalty. However, I believe religion should not be a major factor, since religion can been seen as subjective. But, let's look more on this right to life issue. The right to life, explained by Locke is an inalienable right. Inalienable is sometimes defined wrong. It doesn't mean "cannot be taken away." It means that we are born with it. It is not an external right given by the government. Like freedom of press. Locke believed that the right to life can be forfeited if someone kills. Since they killed, they have lost their own right to life. 3. COST I concede this point. The death penalty is indeed more expensive. However, I do not believe this is an issue to negate the resolution. We are specifically talking about what is just. According to Rawls, justice is based on an individual scale. I.e. between the victim and the criminal. Achieving justice should be seen as a greater priority then the established cost. Should the US government let go of it's social programs for the poor so it could save money? Justice must be seen greater then the implications of it. I.e. the cost. 4. MISTAKES Fair point. An innocent being killed. However, there are no examples that people have been PROVEN to be innocent after they are killed. Except a reasonable doubt situation. however that doesn't mean they were innocent. However more importantly. The checks in the system are so great that people do get out before they receive the death penalty. A lot of these people were innocent, but were let go because the checks found them. Also, should the US government base its policies off of possible accidents/mistakes? Ex: Should the US government ban the use of cars because innocents could be killed by them. No. Reasons: A) There are checks in the system to help avoid mistakes. B) Cars help society. The good brought by cars are greater then the bad produced. I.e. deaths. Society must make choices. Should society let go of the Death Penalty and forfeit the justice brought from it? That is essentially degrading one major obligation of the government and the justice department. I.e. achieve justice. 5. CORRUPTION I would hold this as a valid point. However, your assertion is unwarranted. You are really just making a statement. If you can provide adequate examples, then I will let it stand for this round, then I will attack again. 6. DETERRENT Proving and disproving deterrence is rather difficult. Stats contradict stats. Examples: the UK has less crimes then the US and they have banned the Death Penalty. However, Singapore who holds the most frequent executions has the lowest crime rate. Also, Texas who holds the most executions in the US has had the greatest decrease of killings since the reinstatement in 1976. Essentially, nothing is gained or lost by debating deterrence. However, from a logical standpoint. the Death penalty SHOULD deter since from its very nature is a horrible fate if you get caught. 7. POPULAR OPINION He says that popular opinion is against the Death Penalty. According to politico.com it's split 50% against 50%. However, I believe that yes, public opinion is important. But, the majority is not always RIGHT in what they say. Take slavery for instance. At one point in American History, slavery was seen as fine by the majority. THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT JUST OR RIGHT. 8. VALUE OF LIFE My opponent brings up a very interesting argument. However, my answer is simple. When a person has violated the right to life of someone else, then they too lose their right to life. Period. the Value of Life must be seen as equal between all people. Thus the government cannot bias against the victim and value the life of the criminal as more worthy then that of the victim. The Value of life must be equal. when one kills another innocent, then they must have the equal value of life. Which, according to them, is meaningless, because they killed another person. My Case: I. Kant's Scale of Justice Argument According to Kant, when one kills another person, then they themselves have sentenced themselves to death. The criminal has universalized the action of death and has tipped the scale of justice. Thus the government must give the criminal what he/she has universalized, i.e. death, and put the scale back into balance. The equality between victim and criminal must also be realized. The government must put equal worth between the victim and the criminal. Therefore, to maintain the balance, the government has an obligation to kill the criminal. Only then, has the scale of justice been balanced.