Death Penalty

First, Pro suggests that morals are not and should not be the basis for a legal system. In that case, I invite Pro to explain exactly what is. Even the most anarchistic society is founded on a moral principle (i.e., tyranny of government is immoral). I'm confused by Pro's suggestion that society forms moral contracts that determine law, and then that morals shouldn't have anything to do with punishment. If within that moral contract it suggests that punishment ought to be prescribed to those who violate the moral contract (law) to achieve justice, then the morality of said punishment is indeed relevant. That said, I'll re-ask the first question: Is it ever morally right to kill a human being if you are not being immediately threatened? This must be morally justified before it can be turned into law by Pro's own standards. Second, Pro says there may be times where the "eye for an eye" system of justice ought to be applied. Obviously I'd like an expansion, such as when and why. Pro said raping a rapist would not be a legitimate form of punishment as society may still be in danger. Again, if removing a threat to society is the only standard of punishment for a just legal system, then all I'd have to do is prove that one in maximum security prison will likely not escape in order to dismantle his support of the DP. I could even advocate more security to diminish the chance of escape even further. While there are no guarantees, "the best we can do" is the standard Pro has set for us. Third, I asked if we trust the government to kill only bad people. Pro says this is irrelevant. In the last round I explained why issuing the DP is different than LI. In addition to no possibility of exonerating an innocent party, taking a human life is considered the ultimate moral absolute. If Pro thinks that being detained is equivalent to death, then he has already defeated his own argument of why the DP ought to be preferred. Lastly, Pro writes that LI and the DP can have similar effects, but states "killing [them] to save money is acceptable." Is justice really being achieved if the criterion is strictly a cost-benefit analysis? Pro's already said he doesn't want those facing the DP to have access to more appeals since it can be more expensive. In that case, why not strip the justice system even further if it saves money? Essentially he's advocating not only making the DP permissible, but making it easier (cheaper) to execute. Pun intended. Again, since morality is a focus of this debate, Pro has to justify placing a monetary value on human life. This is a problem, however, considering Pro detailed how monetary value is not an appropriate standard for valuing human life in the last round. Pro writes, "If a court determines that a person will always be a threat to the lives of people in society... death is the most secure form of lock-up... It really has no barring on the morals of it." Obviously the morality of taking a human being's life is going to be a factor in this debate. I'd also like Pro to explain how one can decidedly say that someone will ALWAYS be a threat. If he proposes instances of psychological illness (and many would argue that most killers are indeed mentally unstable), then he will have to justify killing someone for being sick. He repeatedly contends that the DP ought to be an option specifically "for individuals who cannot be rehabilitated," which leads me to assume that this is in fact what he's proposing. Otherwise, he would have no way of knowing that one could not be rehabilitated and/or realize the magnitude of their crime. Pro continues to say that death is the only sure-fire method to eliminate a threat from society. Once again, if the likelihood of someone escaping a maximum security detention center is ridiculously low, this threat is too unrealistic for any serious consideration. Consider all of the potential threats in society that statistically FAR out-weigh someone escaping. We don't outlaw alcohol even though thousands of innocent people will be killed by drunk drivers this year. While it's important to consider threats, saying someone COULD be a threat is not a moral justification for killing them. After all, anyone could be a threat. Specifically, people who are not locked up are bigger threats than those who are. Pro's next argument is, "By saying that LI should have a lower quality of justice, they are being denied justice altogether." I haven't said that one facing LI should have a lower standard of justice. What I did say was that because a death sentence is so final and morally questionable (I've argued that taking a life is the ultimate moral absolute as opposed to detention, which Pro has not disputed), that a more thorough process of appeals ought to be expected if not encouraged. This would mandate higher costs. In order for him to say cost is a primary factor to support the DP, he would have to simultaneously defend making it easier for the State to kill people by weakening the appeals/court process for those on death row. Pro rightly points out that we should not say, "We're not going to execute you - only put you in prison for the rest of your life - so you get a less qualified lawyer and fewer appeals." In the last round I pointed out that if the DP was eliminated, then everyone facing LI would have an equal opportunity (and cost) for decent lawyers and appeals. Pro did not respond to this, though it dismantles his points regarding both the cost of the trial process, and fairness for defendants with similar crimes. The DP itself is responsible for this discrepancy. Next Pro suggests that my wording indicates an accidental car crash could constitute as murder. I meant to say that the INTENTIONAL taking of an innocent life qualifies as murder. Nevertheless, Pro dodged the question that I asked, so I'll repeat it: If INTENTIONALLY taking an innocent life is the worst possible crime (thus warranting the DP), then do those who intentionally kill someone on death row who later turns out to be innocent also warrant the DP? If not, why so? It's important that Pro responds to this, as I will be using his answer to depict an inherent contradiction. Pro explains "The reason for executing someone is... based upon the risks of someone committing future offenses." I've already explained why it's unreasonable to use this highly unlikely threat to justify state sanctioned murder. Moreover, I can use Pro's own logic against him. I could say the reason for NOT executing someone is based upon the potential for the State to kill an innocent person. Once again it would be contradictory and non-sensical to only care about one small potential for mistake (escape), and ignore the potential for another (killing an innocent person) as if one is somehow more dangerous than the other, while the latter guarantees taking an innocent life. Furthermore, I would argue that the possibility of the State - which has a monopoly on force - executing innocent people is a threat to society in and of itself. Pro also provided some examples of who ought to receive the DP, such as OBL who he says had "almost no chance of ever being rehabilitated." I'm not sure we can say that OBL was definitely mentally ill. In that case, this proves that this is about vengeance rather than logic. Until a moral justification is provided, there is nothing for me to refute; I've contended that morality IS the basis of the law and subsequently the law's penalties. Pro concludes by saying that I must prove rehabilitation/LI is completely safe, but this is absurd given his own introduction to this debate: "Of course, any justice system is going to be run by humans for the foreseeable future, and so subject to mistakes. This is regardless of what punishment method the system chooses for any individual case. However, it should be noted that the system is designed to "try its best." Back to you :)