The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

Thanks to Bsh1 for the excellent debate! It's been excellent. I admit, I did mix Hegel and Hume! o_0 --- Pro's case - Summary Pro's case is surprisingly straightforward. I kept asking for clarification because the parts I interpreted as having holes confused me, but it seems I wasn’t mistaken or confused. He proposes that there is a 'right to reciprosity' afforded to all humans that outweighs all their other rights, including their right to live. For Pro, not killing the defendant is a violation of the right of reciprosity. He also claims that the only moral wrongs possible are violations of one's rights, and that therefore the only reason NOT to kill the defendant is the violation of the right to life (which is a lesser than right to reciprosity). Thus, for Pro, the only suitable action is to kill the defendant. -- Problems with Pro's case All of the following are fatal flaws in Pro's case: 1. Rights probably don't exist. I gave sources last round showing that the concept of 'rights' are obsolete in a world without absolute moral standards. Pro wants this link to be ignored because it goes beyond the character limit, which is fine; however, I did say in the space of the debate that contemporary philosophers don't buy into the idea of universal rights, which Pro dropped. Pro claims that I dropped that the Declaration of Independence is not an adequate authority on rights. However, I do not recall dropping this argument, although I do recall mentioning that the Declaration of Independence is the inspiration for all American law and politics, which actually makes it a rather high authority in those matters. Concerning the existence of rights, Pro actually falls prey to his own criticism. Pro gives no reason why universal rights actually other than his own bare assertion. If the Declaration of Independence is not an adequate authority on rights, then Pro certainly is not one. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that rights as a whole exist. 2. EVEN IF rights exist, rights are vague. If one is going to kill someone else based solely on their conviction to a certain principle, then that principle had better be clear. Pro uses the example of the right to life being clear-cut. However, nothing could be further from the truth—are persons in a coma for years alive in the same way as others? Are insects? Are fetuses? Pro’s right to reciprocity is especially vague. In fact, the alternative punishments do offer reciprocity--a lifetime sentence in jail is quite a reciprocal punishment. The right to reciprocity would need to be extremely clear cut for one to murder the defendant because life in prison does not seem harsh enough. 3. EVEN IF rights are clear, rights are assigned and not inherent. Persons of color born in the American South used to have no rights. They were mere property, and could be bought or sold at will. Furthermore, slaveowners had the right to torture, kill, or rape whomever they please, due to their “right to property.” Pro claims that criminals lose their right to life depending on their crime; the fact that Pro is deciding who lives and dies based on who he thinks has rights is a perfect example of how rights are assigned. 4. EVEN IF rights are inherent, they aren’t all that there is to being human. Pro fails to show why there is nothing immoral outside of a violation of rights. One can see how scary it would be if rights were assigned and rights thought inherent—things like murder could be twisted to be protected be artificial rights. In fact, that’s what Pro is doing. 5. EVEN IF humans are reduced to rights, the right to reciprocity doesn’t exist. Pro assumes that humans are essentially autonomous, and that if you refuse people the fruits of their actions, it is like you are insulting their autonomy—the runner shouldn’t be refused the prize, and the child shouldn’t be refused the timeout for stealing the cookie. Unfortunately these are the only two examples Pro gives to prove that this principle exists. In fact, I gave six alternate explanations for the mother giving the child a timeout besides the right to reciprocity. Furthermore, I pointed out that the runner should get the prize because the runner wanted it. If the runner didn’t want the prize, she wouldn’t be awarded it. Pro gives no evidence in the existence of this principle, and Ockham’s Razor would have us choose simpler explanations for these two anecdotes. 6. EVEN IF the right to reciprocity exists, life in prison would not be a violation. The right to reciprocity demands that certain retribution occur—however, it doesn’t necessitate that it be the same. Even Con does not propose the raping of the criminal and his family. Obviously, the punishment does not have to be an exact mirror image of the crime. Life in prison is satisfactory. Although the criminal may not have expected that, who cares? Presumably the court has the authority to decide the criminal’s fate, and life in prison would be satisfactory consequence to not violate the right to reciprocity. 7. EVEN IF avoiding the death penalty violates the right to reciprocity, the right to life outweighs the impacts of the right to reciprocity. Pro claims that the core of humanity is its autonomy. I pointed out that this is a strange assertion for all captured or restrained persons, because it means they are inhuman. However, assuming that the core of humanity is autonomy, Pro further claims that refusing to give the full consequences of punishment—death—to the defendant is insulting to his basic humanity. This was one of the strangest portions of the debate. Pro suggests that refusing the death penalty makes it seem “as if” the defendant has no autonomy, which is degrading. However, which is worse—to insult a person by saying they aren’t free, or to literally prevent them from being free?! Actually executing someone is an ultimate act of restraining and confining the other—the defendant can literally never make a free action again. Actually destroying someone’s autonomy (and therefore dignity) is far worse than merely implying that they are not free. If Pro were actually concerned with the autonomy of the criminal—that is, if the criminal were “choosing” to be executed—the solution would be simple. Just ask the criminal wants to die, and allow the criminal to commit suicide. Pro continually assumes the criminals actions are consent for death, that the criminal “wanted it.” However, killing the criminal on behalf of the criminal without their consent is a clear violation of autonomy. We are not in fact arguing about suicide but the death penalty. Pro claims that violating the right to reciprocity devalues the person, but murdering a person actually renders the person utterly valueless. Pro claims that living with the insult of receiving mercy is a worse Hell than death. This is very strange. I’ve received mercy all the time, and am not living in Hell. Godchooseslife tells me all the time that she’s “better than I deserve.” Furthermore, what if the mother had not given the child a punishment for stealing the cookie? According to Pro this would be a violation of the right to reciprocity, and the child would be better off dead. Obviously, the right to life is more important than the obscure and arbitrary right to reciprocity. 8. The right to life is not forfeit. I have shown a source--the Declaration of Independence, the inspiration for American law and politics--that life cannot be forfeited. Although that is not conclusive proof that the right to life can't be forfeited, Pro has yet to prove that the right to life can be forfeited. EVEN IF the right to life is indeterminate, it would be a terrible idea to execute someone based solely on the idea that they DON’T have the right to life when that fact is uncertain. Pro makes a rather strange argument that because the defendant expects the consequences of his actions, that he accepts them. This is extremely odd for a number of reasons that I've outlined already. I know that driving a car can contribute to global warming, and do it anyway. That does not mean that I accept or want global warming. Similarly, the defendant might have known that he could die from his actions, but not wanted to. Thus, if dying is the defendant’s choice it ought to be made that way—with the defendant choosing, not the State (without the criminal’s consent). Thus, the criminal did not willingly forfeit his rights but has his rights stolen from him under Pro’s plan, whereas my position respects the criminal’s partial autonomy while still providing punishment. - Pro’s case is entirely contingent on opposing all of the above. Thus, if any one of them flows through, my entire case does. - Pro admits that killing is generally a bad thing. Thus, as I have shown that the right to reciprocity fails to excuse the murder of the defendant, then Pro has no reason for the defendant to be killed. I have shown several ways in which Pro's case collapses, thus demonstrating that the death penalty in this instance is no better than inexcusable murders (for which the defendant is being punished in the first place), and that in fact Pro's case sometimes seems to support my own case. - Kritik – Demonizing 9. Pro attempted to turn my kritik by suggesting that claiming that rape and murder is the worst of humankind that I am demonzing the criminal. Pro claims he can think of nothing more demonizing. I can. Pro claims that the defendant is so evil that he should be murdered. Pro would literally render the criminal into an inanimate body. This is violence against the demon. In contrast, I appeal to the criminal’s still being human, albeit a very bad one. Furthermore, Pro keeps claiming that the criminal was asking for it. Pro dropped everything else in the kritik, including that the consequence for demonizing and violence should be a rejection by the ballot. Therefore, since the link fits uniquely for Pro, Pro loses the debate by this kritik independently.---Thanks to BS1 and the judges!