A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

=========================================== 1. Rights A. My opponent has crossed himself up here quite a bit in an attempt to have it both ways: quote from PRO "I would argue that imprisonment, while unjust,. .. " Stop for a moment here. Notice how my opponent is claiming that the laws that we have that make criminals go to jail are UNJUST, that somehow imprisoning someone who is violent (for example) is somehow unjust. How could that possibly be unjust? Answer = It isn't. It is needed for the safety of society, because other people also have rights, among which is the right to their own safety. That is just and fair. Ok. Then RIGHT AFTER that my opponent says: quote from PRO ". .. is sometimes necessary for the protection of society. " So here my opponent is saying that it is just. I wanted to slow it down on those points to be sure that those things didn't get overlooked. So to break it down: First my opponent says the law is bad "UNJUST" = PRO is saying it is BAD here. Then my opponent says that the law is sometimes ". .. necessary for the safety of society" = PRO is saying it is GOOD here. BAD /= GOOD. Therefore my opponent has committed a logical fallacy. I believe my opponent only claims that particular situation is unjust is so that he can try to use it to make a point about how somehow taking away a murderer's life could be unjust, but it is perfectly clear in the first instance that it is completely just to imprison someone who is violent. They have violated the laws, and for the protection for the others in society the person must be imprisoned. So what HAS to happen is that the guilty party has to have their right to liberty REVOKED (IF we are truly dealing with JUSTICE). B. Do not be deceived, because CON is simply sticking to the resolution, exactly as the resolution reads. The resolution is about how a "JUST" society should respond, not how a "MERCIFUL" society should respond. The resolution states: "A JUST society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment. " Justice and Mercy are completely different virtues, do not be confused. Justice is about ENFORCING the law. MERCY is about IGNORING the law. Justice is raw and fair. Many people may not be accustomed to dealing with raw justice, but I hope no one is swayed by PRO trying to introduce "Mercy" into the resolution, because it isn't there. Definition of mercy from dictionary. com: 3. the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, esp. to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Here is Merriam-Webster's definition as well: 1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder . http://www.merriam-webster.com... The Death Penalty is even used as THE example in the definition of MERCY. Too bad for PRO that the resolution deals with Justice instead. Secondly, who said the law was supposed to benefit the murdered person? My opponent has simply implied that, because that also is not written in the resolution. If anything it is dealing more with society. And it is a benefit to the society if a convicted killer is prevented from ever murdering again with 100% certainty. Further, there is only ONE way to secure that outcome of perfect safety for others in the society. The people in the society deserve that protection. We all know what that one sure way is. ============================================ 2. Costs A. To quote PRO ". .. on a punishment that has not been shown to have any advantages over a less expensive alternative. " CON pointed out in Round 1 that there is a significant advantage to having capital punishment, and what advantage would that be? The obvious advantage of capital punishment over life imprisonment is that it is 100% effective at preventing any additional murders. If the murderer is allowed to live there will always be a chance for them to kill again. This is basically just extending my argument from last round since it was not rebutted. B. To quote PRO "I assert that life without parole is cheaper and more humane than the death penalty," CON already pointed out last round that cost is irrelevant, and this was not disputed, extend my arguments. CON also pointed out earlier in the round that "Mercy" is not the value we are arguing, but rather "Justice", so whether it is more humane or not (Mercy) is irrelevant and immaterial to the resolution. If "Mercy" was the value, CON could make a strong case that Capital Punishment is more merciful than life imprisonment, in fact this is actually why I am for capital punishment, but I will try to stay on topic here and stick to what the resolution actually states, and would invite my opponent to do likewise. As far as solitary confinement being utilized for prisoners who are especially dangerous: why isn't it used today then for all convicted murderers? The reason why is because prolonged solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment which is forbidden by the Constitution (8th Amendment). It is a type of torture. And if the convicted murderer was not kept in solitary confinement the ENTIRE time, then he would have an opportunity to murder again. That is why it doesn't work. "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture. The relevant treaty monitoring bodies -- the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture -- have found that prolonged solitary confinement can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. " - the USA has ratified this treaty. . http://www.amnestyusa.org... "evidence overwhelmingly [indicates] that solitary confinement alone, even in the absence of physical brutality or unhygienic conditions, can produce emotional damage, decline in mental functioning and even the most extreme forms of psychopathology such as depersonalization, hallucinations and delusions". Ruling in a case involving prisoners held in strict isolation in Germany, the European Human Rights Commission (1978:97) similarly noted that "isolation can be sufficient in itself to gravely impair physical and mental health". www. solitaryconfinement. org/uploads/sourcebook_02. pdf =========================================== 3. Innocents My opponent's 5 sentences from last round did not fully rebut my arguments, nor establish his own. In fact his own ideas can be applied just as easily to the case for CON. For example: 1. "No determination of guilt is infallible. " --> No imprisonment system is infallible, there would always be a chance for a convicted murderer to murder again. 2. "Execution of an innocent is never acceptable. " --> Murder of an innocent person in society by a previously convicted murderer is never acceptable. 3. "These types of evidence are not flawless, and my opponent has given no citation as to their accuracy. " --> Prisons are not flawless and CON has pointed out some of their shortcomings. 4. "There will always be innocents who end up being executed, no matter the system. " --> There will always be murderers with the chance to murder again, no matter the (prison) system. 5. "The only way to solve this is to get rid of the death penalty entirely. " --> The only way to solve this is to implement capital punishment in every single case, in this way NO convicted murderer will EVER kill again. A. We are actually dealing with the PUNISHMENT, and not about guilt or innocence in many cases. It is these cases that have not been addressed adequately by PRO. I would ask a cross examination type question of PRO: If we know they are guilty (confession etc. ) then is capital punishment ok? Thank You.