The Death Penalty makes more sense than Solitary Confinement for Life.

"The Constitution goes even further than anything the government can do. Torture is against the Constitution; the death penalty is not. And the Constitution says nothing about the movie business buying out a person for a death scene. " - I feel as though the backlash to such a policy of selling a person's actual death to the movies would be enormous. Doesn't the family of the murderer deserve some semblance of respect and dignity? It's not their fault and they should not see their son, daughter, brother, sister, mother or father be executed live on TV or in the movies. This reminds me of terrorists suicide tapes that are sold in Palestine. It is capitalzing on actual human loss and it is an offensive practice. "The pain felt by the family members would be reflected in the pain felt in the family members of the death-penalized murderer. Emotions do not decide court cases. Evidence decides court cases. " - Sure, evidence decides court cases, but emotions decide the penalty. The families of victims cry out for the death penalty and the penalization of a criminal is partially based on emotions in the case. It is tantamount to vengeance, which is not justice, for the courts to be controlled by the strong passions of the victims' families and give the death penalty. "My assumptions are not ill-placed. If you sit in a cell for 30 years with nothing to do but reflect, your life means less than that of a person who actually contributes to the good of society. The government's main concern is the good of their jurisdiction and its society. " - I wish we had more of a chance to delve into this philosophically, because I argue that the life of someone doing "good" for society has just as much MEANING as that of a person in solitary for their whole life. But perhaps another time :) "You're comparing solitary confinement to ordinary prisons. However, a dead criminal is much less likely to attack a guard than a freedom-deprived one. " - No, I'm comparing it to death row, where the average stay is usually over 10 years. Even in Texas, the average stay is 10.26 years. .. and it's Texas. That is plenty of time for these prisoners to riot and kill a guard, especially given that they do have exercise time out of their cells and are joined up with the other death row inmates. Death row is a huge group of convicted murderers. How can solitary confinement possibly be less safe? . http://www.dc.state.fl.us... . http://www.associatedcontent.com... "No, it's a plausible reason as to why solitary confinement is worse than the death penalty. " - Well, you did not rebut my argument, so I will have to assume this point is conceded. "Killing is not necessarily murdering. If a person already lost his right to life, a death sentence is no longer depriving him of the right that he removed from himself. And I believe that punishments may, in some cases, include the loss of life. This isn't anarchy. This is a judicial system. " - But your philosophy does not say who may take a life. It basically says no one may take another's life without giving up their own, and if someone does kill someone, they lose their right to life. Yes? Where in that does it say that someone ELSE is allowed to take the killer's life? Okay, so the killer lost his right to life, theoretically. Doesn't that mean anyone can take his life? Why government? You say "this is a judicial system" but your philosophy grants no room for that. There is no assignation of power, logically, for any entity to take the life of a killer without letting EVERYONE take the life of a killer. "Well, you conceded that a person absolutely proven to be guilty of murder is guilty of murder, so the judge has no real power over this. Government is not perfect, but it is better at determining punishment that any other system. And so, let's live with it. " - Simply because we are used to government determining punishment does not mean it is the best system. But this is a smaller point I believe. "And to counter your murder rate thing, we have a correlation between murder rate and death penalty. However, there are two possible explanations that do not involve a fault in the death penalty. 1. There are only fifty states for data, and only about twenty years. It could be purely coincidence; perhaps one of the death penalty states has always been naturally crime-run. 2. Maybe the death penalty does not lead to higher crime rates; maybe higher crime rates lead to the decision to adopt a death penalty, in an attempt to lower the crime rate. " - Your first hypothesis is most likely untrue, according to this next link's data. There is no substantial correlation between the highest crime states and the death penalty. - Your second hypothesis also is probably not true, since states usually abolish, rather than adopt, a death penalty. The death penalty is the one that's been around for a while, so it's highly unlikely any state has decided to institute it now after years of not having it. The reverse is more likely to be true in most cases. Perhaps one state has done so, but otherwise, the most reasonable explanation for the data is that the death penalty is not a deterrence to murderers. In conclusion, solitary confinement is a much better solution than the death penalty. Solitary confinement is better because: - It is far more just than the death penalty. - It is safer for prison guards. Death row inmates are allowed to congregate and can riot for the average 10-year span they spend there. - It is not based on eye-for-an-eye principles that support vengeance. - It is reversible in case a mistake is somehow made; the death penalty is not. - It will save taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars as compared to the death penalty. My opponent did not display any reasonable ways (that did not violate common ethical sensibilities) to reduce cost while keeping the death penalty. Solitary confinement would lift a tax burden off of the American public. -The death penalty hasn't worked to keep people from murdering others. Clearly, the threat of death is not enough to keep people from murdering others, so why keep it if it isn't effective in preventing murder? Isn't that the point? It's time to table it and try something different. - The expeditiousness of the process will be an increase over the process of the death penalty. Families of victims will know immediately and justice will be served quickly. The murderer will go to solitary very quickly. No long, drawn-out appeals inherent in the death penalty (as there should be when someone's life is on the line). - Spirituality and other meaning can be found in solitary confinement - life is not meaningless once incarcerated and to say so is to place a value judgment on one's life that a person is not truly able to make. You cannot judge the meaning of someone else's life in such a way. - No innocent people will die as a result of solitary confinement. 130 convicted murderers condemned to death have been exonerated as a result of new evidence. Many other innocent people have most likely died at the government's hands via electric chair/lethal injection/etc. - The eye for an eye argument does not logically give power to anyone specifically for the task of carrying out the philosophy. Either anyone can kill a murderer or no one can kill a murderer. No single entity or person is logically designated. Since we don't want people going around killing whomever they deem murderers, the logical option is that NO ONE may kill a murderer. All of these arguments have shown solitary confinement to be a much better option than the death penalty. I thank my very worthy opponent, mongeese, and any and all who view this debate.