Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

Errors: 1) Lex talionis stands, as US law a murder results in a death penalty and is the most common acknowledged by you and me in previous rounds. J.S.Mills is irrelevant here as he is a political philosopher, not a moral one. I easily counter with Rousseau here or even John Locke both acknowledge 1) The right to life [1] and 2) the state has no right in taking a life [2]. As Rousseau states: 'We may add that frequent punishments are always a sign of weakness or remissness on the part of the government. There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger.' Volunteering is a benefit, so I ask, why rid them of their self responsibility by allowing them to escape through a voluntary death? Cases as requested: http://www.opposingviews.com... Hence escalates violence. 2) My opponent resorts to semantics. I clearly showed that the death penalty has resulted in innocent men being killed not call for the increase in evidence. Those put to death can only be declared innocent until AFTER they have been killed as I have shown. Her turn is nothing more than a fallacy, a man alive has much more time to get his name cleared than that of one with CP. My opponent fails to show an OBJECTIVE MORAL THEORY as to why taxpayers money being used to house prisoners is immoral. Yes death sentences have appeal options, but whats to say a court rejects them? My opponent ignores this factor within CP. Also her own source acknowledges that no apparent CSI effect has happened in a jury. 3) Again semantics. I stated very clearly that if the state is not responsible for the creation of a person why is it responsible for their deaths? Because of the right to Life, Liberty and Property, who is the government to take my life away from me? 4) Question for my opponent you stated: "He argues that shame and dissapointment will be effective against cold hearted killing machines" You maintain CP causes crime deterrence, now you claim that it will not work.Which is it? You've contradicted yourself and acknowledged that CP does not deter crime! 1. Rebuttal That study refutes Canada versus that of Canada, not Canada vs the US and therefore is NOT a violation of ceteris paribus. We're looking for an objective example here on the truths of CP and this is an excellent objective example. If anything Canada's population has increased and thus should have more crime. There isn't, it has dropped dramatically and therefore the study still stands! And you even furthered my point of ridding the CP yourself. My opponent acknowledges crime rates drop when CP is gone, but is wrong that in the US it dropped due to CP. It did not. [3]. She also forgets to distinguish between those rates and the rates of bodily harm and aggravated assault [4] which are higher mainly in Saskatoon and Regina hence the lesser drop. She is not telling you the whole story. As for Wes Lowe the flaws here are quite obvious. My source clearly showed comparisons and contrasts between CP and non-CP states, and furthermore showed them through neighbouring states.[5] How is Lowe's flawed? Well lets look at New Mexico which -according to my source- has had 9 murders in 2009, and compare it to Nevada which only had 6. An observer would claim it deters crime but it is false.[6] In fact, my source clearly shows the differences between W Virginia and Virginia, Wisc. and Illinoi, and Iowa and Missouri (neighbours). No violation of ceterus paribus here and she offers no proof otherwise other than culture. Even if it did, my opponent couldn't make her case either as she has BOP. As for dropped sources this was due to broken links to which she admitted.(look in comments.) Number 4 still is broken! Her sources should be rejected and regarded as flawed. 2. Rebuttal As I have shown with my source it does not save lives it places them at risk.Tafero was not guilty, the self evidence is not there (if you read the case the passenger was the gunman via gunpowder NOT Tafero). Furthermore, for every 8 men executed, 1 was innocent as the failure rate.[7] What if that was you or me? And finally, although someone innocent will always be jailed I argued against this in two ways: 1) without CP they will not be killed unjustly, and 2) it is immoral to do so for the entire population. Now inmates would not be paroled, as they would continue serving out their sentences (see Truscott Case and/or [8] New York) without parole. No drops here. My point was clear in that case: Why have the CP when the man was rehabilitated? Why make it the gravest punishment when others are far worse? The accused in that case thought of himself as a hero as Canada does not have CP. It is not the safest as innocents are killed, and is not just due to it being illegal (dropped) and immoral(dropped .. see consequentialism) 3. Rebutals I did answer them with the following: Which is more beneficial via consequentialism? The DP being active and potentially killing innocent people all the time? Or ridding it and saving those dollars for rehabilitation? No economic costs were ever debated (dropped) because it is cheaper. Hitler wanted power and committed suicide rather than spend life in jail. The paedophile suffers from a mental disease. Napoleon even said it himself "Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me." all dictators think like this, so rather than go to court and lose, they will fight until they die. Because when they die they are martyrs (Neo-nazi's anyone?) and cannot live to watch what happens without them. Finally no it has not, the US Supreme Court temporarily abolished it in the Ferman v. Georgia case. I may have one judge but you have none. Also Canada has the same thing in it's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have concluded it is cruel and unusual punishment. New York and Massachusetts also lost due to it being unconstitutional. And for that matter is still illegal, the right to life .. pretty clear people(dropped). It is illegal. Moral: Consequentialsim and Primum Non Nocere .. meaning CP is immoral because it purges the community into further violence, and risks killing innocent people. The ends do not jusrify the means. Furthermore, medical ethics dictate that doctors do not have the right to harm a life, and tarnishes the doctors reputation, the community, and the country. Legal: Retributive places crimes against the state first through the victim. A battle in court ensues and victims often never get to confront their attackers for healing. Communities have no options in ruling the guilt or innocence of a person and thus feel helpless in a 'miscarriage of justice' (Judges controversial rulings sometimes is upsetting). Compare this to restorative, in which the victims needs are placed first. Communities assist one another in determining the outcome, and proper reparations are made. Rehabilitation ensues with acceptance from the community, inline with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs resulting in less crime. Offenders are lead to come to the realization of self responsibility and are met with self guilt or shame.[9] 'Repay' to the community and victims of the crime. Economical: Due to appeals, too expensive (dropped). More experts are needed, judges, prosecuting attorneys, et cetera to ensure the prevention of a miscarriage. Semantics twice by my opponent, no dropped points (me) and she has yet to fulfil her BOP via legal, moral (with objective theory as measure), or economical means. I ask for the win please. Resolution Upheld. CP should be removed. Sources: 1)http://www.debate.org... 9)http://en.wikipedia.org...