On the Death Penalty

My old opponent has somewhat mischaracterized my argument, but I shall forgive him for this, because he does so quite eloquently, and I can see where his confusion arises. Jblake has already conceded that society has a defensive right against criminals ("This I will take as valid."). He contests the scope of the right to defense, the scope of the right to redress of grievances, and the notion of 3rd part defense. I shall, however, address his other points first and then move to these three. And as for the "absurdity" of my court model... I think a version of that could be defended, yes... you certainly wouldn't shoot the criminal right there on the stand, but especially in cases where the criminal has confessed, there's no excuse for keeping them alive for lengthy times at taxpayer expense. ********************* My opponent is correct in his notion that the right to self defense stops when one's life is no longer threatened. However, this right DOES include lethal force if necessary. Since this is not entirely pertinent to the argument, I will move on, because it is indeed common knowledge - Self defense includes the right to use lethal force, but only when necessary. Otherwise, it is a violation of the attacker's rights (which I know sounds a little strange, but is indeed the case). Apprehended murderers, rapists, and child molesters are not a danger to society, no. However, their crime does carry the weight of having broken the social contract in a way that has taken the most fundamental right of another person. Once they have abridged this right in another, they lack the same right themselves. This is not to say that the rapist should be raped, and the molester molested. This is to say that some actions are indeed so heinous that the perpetrator no longer deserves to live. My opponent uses the criminal's right to self defense as a reason for why capital punishment is wrong. However, in violating another's right to self-defense and their right to life, the criminal has negated his own claim to this right. He also points to incarceration for life as a viable alternative. However, the problem with this is that the very same entity that the criminal has transgressed against (society) is supporting him while in prison. In other words, the man whose daughter was raped and murdered is paying for the man who raped and killed her to eat. That's disgusting. It is the topic of the right to redress of grievances that my opponent mischaracterizes. He is under the impression that this is a person-to-person right. However, this is not the case. The right to the redress of grievances enables a third party to obtain remuneration for actions on another's behalf, much in the same way the parents of a murdered victim may appear in court on their behalf. This right is for the state (or social contract, if you will) to exercise on behalf of the citizens to address the actions of criminals. An argument under this right might follow: 1) You (the criminal) have forcibly removed Joe from the SC. 2) You are clearly guilty of murder (1). 3) The just punishment is to permanently remove you from the SC. 4) The just, and only way to do this is by death. Obviously the right of redress of grievances is limited - this is why one cannot kill a man AND his father because that man murdered one person. The redress of grievances must be in the form of equal remuneration (or renumeration, whichever...), or else it is inherently unjust for one party or the other. My opponent will no doubt begin asking questions about rehabilitation. However, the fact that someone is truly repentant for an action does not change the fact that the action a) took place, b) was heinously immoral, and c) still carries a punishment for the action. ****************************** My opponent claims that the rights to life, self defense, and redress of grievances are "flimsy" without showing a good case for why a basic understanding of these rights would not limit one from seeking the death penalty. A perfectly equitable right to redress of grievances would still not prohibit the use of capital punishment. A caveat - for the three criminal acts I propose (murderers, rapists, and child molesters)... they are not part of the resolution, merely a personal preference. However, if my opponent would like to debate them, the only one that makes sense in the framework of the argument so far is the action of murder... ************************ Some acts are so heinous that the actor responsible for them does not deserve to live. A perfectly equitable right to redress of grievances would still not prohibit the use of capital punishment. Sometimes, the best way to protect society (for the un-rehabilitatible) is to kill the offender. ************************ AFFIRMED.