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

"Is that a joke? I believe I have actually pointed out NINE reasons as to why killing shouldn't warrant the same action. They are listed next to numbers 1 - 9 in this debate (in case you missed that)." My Response: your nine points don't explain why the criminals ought to receive the death penalty as a just punishment. Your nine points explain that the application is a faulty system. The system doesn't make the punishment inherently unjust. I was asking why is it not giving each person their due. "In regard to the finger analogy, this point is flawed as Pro maintains that money could compensate for other crimes. While this may be true in my finger scenario, it is NOT necesarilly always true. Consider a situation in which a man was hit by a car, was in a coma for awhile (lost time of his life), and now has permanent brain damage as well as is paralyzed. He lives in an Assisted Living facility away far from his family (where they believe he'll get the best care, even if they don't get to see him often)." My Response: My opponent has switched her analogy since I successfully refuted that example. Now she presents a car crash example. In this example she examples how he lost some time of his life. For this, the criminal would get prison time to match the coma time. That's fair and proportionate. Then she goes on to bring up an assisted living center. For that, according to the law since the damage is permanent, the criminal would receive more jail time. Now, look, I have explained how every example besides killing can be compensated without the use of the death penalty or the exact punishment. Killing, is the only one that warrants the same. Extend this argument for the several paragraphs she uses to make a giant, and very unlikely scenario. "It is a scary thought that the government has the authority to end the life of its own citizen. If the right to life is the 'ultimate' right, than essentially you're advocating that the government can pretty much do anything it wants, or violate ANY rights for the sake of 'justice.' Remember that government was both established and perpetuated by MAN - not a divine, perfect being. Therefore not all of the government's choices can be considered right or just 100% of the time (and most intelligent people know it's way less than that)." My Response: Yes, and it is also scary that the government can keep you in prison, take your money. Should we end all punishments because it is "scary"? I think punishments being scary is a point that helps deterrence. The government is a mechanism of justice. That's why a section of it is called the justice system. Society is nothing without a fundamental principle of justice behind it (Rawls). I agree, not all the government choices are good, but that doesn't mean we should forgo things like justice. "Going back to Locke and what he said about punishment being meant for retribution, again I pose the question of what the death penalty solves. My opponent agrees that it cannot be considered a deterrent (because of mixed statistics), so therefore, it's essentially about revenge like I have been saying all along. Because killing someone won't bring the victim back, what other retirbution is rewarded in taking the life of another?" My Response: I have answered this question alreay. It shows that the government won't A) Tolerate killing and B) won't value the life of a criminal over the innocent victim. Also, we don't know if deterrence is true. If we execute murderers, and there is indeed no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If there is a deterrent effect then we have saved the lives of countless innocent civilians. "This heading may have very well been 'hypocrisy' again... "Cost should come secondary to principles that are greater" seems to be my opponent's argument here, yet my opponent is against the very social programs that he pretends to care about in his argument. Pro must acknowledge that principles are not and cannot always be put before costs. If money wasn't a factor, why would Pro - or anyone - be against universal health care? Welfare? Social programs? Etc etc etc. People look down upon these institutions because they affect the worth of their own dollar. Thus although it may SOUND NICE to say we can disregard cost as a huge factor in *POLITICS*... hahaha... realistically it doesn't hold any water. And furthermore, who said that the death penalty is the just response?! To me, you are doing something unjust and costing me extra money at the same time. " My Response: Cost does not make something just or not. Cost is just a human mechanism. Whether or not something is expensive does not mean a person should or should not receive there due. That is really what you are doing here. You are sacrificing giving a criminal their due for the sake of money. And as I have brought up before, life in jail is also very expensive. "In both 'researched' cases, innocence nor guilt cannot be determined... yet both lives have been ended, so what's the point? Thank you, Pro, for acknowledging my entire criterion: mistakes are sometimes made, and sometimes new information is found too late. Who cares if new evidence determining innocence is EVER found? People aren't going to care to look into it as much once the defendant is already dead. Also, if my opponent wishes to maintain that justice = not good but FAIRNESS, he would have to prove that the death penalty is ALWAYS the fair decision. This cannot be achieved, for he has completely ignored my points regarding crimes committed in the heat of passion, crimes of the mentally unstable, etc." My Response: My opponent didn't understand my point. No person has yet been killed that has been proven innocent 100%. That's the point. Until someone has been found 100% innocent, then this point can be valid. "Death is what he deserves and it is the only punishment that is bad enough for an evil eprson that kills." Whoa. That incredibly agressive and presumptious statement speaks volumes about my opponent, and many death penalty supporters in general. It's assumption after assumtion, and ignores all of the causes behind why one kills another. Further, the notion that death is worse than suffering is only an OPINION. It must be backed up with facts or at least more detailed reasoning in order to be considered. My Response: I can turn this and say that the people who are against the death penalty can't answer why jail is what should be used. They also contradict in argument. One side says it's to mean, the other says it is inhumane. It seems the anti-death penalty people can't make up their minds. "History informs us that most executions were public and brutal, yet crime was more widespread then than it is now. If murders are still occuring AT ALL in states where the death penalty is legal, than my point is upheld." My Response: Turn this against my opposite. My opponent already claimed that some killings happen because the person is mentally insane. The Death Penalty would not deter them. Thus, you can drop my opponents statement about deterrence. Politico.com is not a valid source. That's like me providing a stat and saying my source is Google.com My Response: go to it. It is always used by political analysts. It is indeed a valid site. She then attacks my contention with a new argument. She says the scale of justice can never be equal. I understand that. However that is the duty of the justice system. And the death penalty is a good start to move in that direction. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) My opponent never negates because has never proves that the death penalty doesn't give killers their due. She merely says the application is bad. 2) My opponent never fully refutes the point that the person loses their right to life when they kill. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.