Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

>I agree with my opponent's spelling of "capital," I apologize for any trouble that caused. Secondly, I agree with my opponent's evaluation of the resolution in that the clash should be over the use of capital punishment. I wish for the debate to be over this, the usage of lethal injection in the resolution was merely for clarification. >I now move on to my arguments for this round. >Albert Einstein writes "[He] ha[s] reached the conviction that the abolition of the death penalty is desirable. Reasons: 1) Irreparability in the event of an error of justice, 2) Detrimental moral influence of the execution procedure on those who, whether directly or indirectly, have to do with the procedure. " I affirm the resolution: :: Resolved :: >The United States Ought To Use Capital Punishment By Lethal Injection >For clarification I offer the following definitions: >Penal code: a portion of a state's laws defining crimes and specifying the punishment. >Lethal injection: *see definition given in Neg R1 >Felony: a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor >Additionally, I would like to offer the following observation as analysis of the resolution: 1. The affirmative burden of proof is to prove that the US ought to use capital punishment by lethal injection. The negative burden of proof is to prove that the US ought not to use capital punishment by lethal injection. 2. The resolution refers to the US as a whole rather than simply a part of the US. :: Value and Value Criterion :: >The negative values justice. Justice is obviously quite inherent in this resolution and any argument that does not uphold justice neither truly affirms or negates this resolution. Justice is the primary stipulation of this resolution given that it refers specifically to a single judicial procedure. Justice is attained within any given society with a sense of morality. The negative thus chooses the criterion morality. Morality is imperative because to truly govern a body of humans successfully, a set of morals must be in place. Throughout culture, one of these morals has almost always (exception of cannibalism) been to avoid killing fellow man. :: Contention 1 - The State Is Not a Sufficient Instrument of Penal Code Through Capital Punishment :: >We have five recognized penal goals in the US; listed as retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, vengeance and incapacitation. To fit the justice theme of this debate, Capital Punishment obviously needs to fit into one of the above categories. These are the very fundamental basics of punishment; and yet Capital Punishment fits but one of these. That would be vengeance; to avenge a crime committed by the criminal. All Capital Punishment, whether or not by lethal injection, is by the State. We must ask ourselves: "should the State be the one to avenge this crime? " The answer is inevitably no; the only people who could properly avenge a crime are those who are directly affected by it. The State is simply affected indirectly because it not the true victim of the crime. :: Contention 2 - The Use of Death As Punishment Is Immoral :: >"The world is a fine place and worth the fighting for and I hate very much to leave it. "ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ It is often said that the greatest gift one could possibly give is life. The reverse is also true. Whether or not a felon even committed a crime is one aspect; but to take their life either way is quite another. There are no second chances. When felons are sentenced to death, they are given a time. From then on, their life is a countdown. A countdown of how long it will take until they die. With life as valuable as it is, can we as Americans afford to strip fellow Americans of the right to live? I think not. Does the eighth Constitutional Amendment not protect Americans for "cruel and unusual punishments? " Cruel is defined as willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. Capital Punishment is therefore a direct violation of the Constitution. A. Pain In Lethal Injection >A University of Miami study finds that 43 of 49 studied criminals killed by Capital Punishment were not sufficiently unconscious due to sodium thiopental. These criminals were alive and awake during their painful cardiac arrests. >I will now move on to my opponent's case. :: Value and Value Criterion :: >My opponent and I share a value of justice. Justice will provide a voting issue and a means of determining which side truly proves their case over the other. Therefore, we will not be debating the existence of justice, but rather how justice is best fulfilled. I counter this with basically my entire case (not supporting Capital Punishment). My opponent chose a criterion of Proportionality. This criterion I must take issue with. For example: it is, in the US (Texas), possible to commit a felony for multiple rapes of a minor. Given the US framework at hand, is it proportional that this is a crime possibly punishable by death? Do two rapes equal one kill? Neither my opponent nor the legislature provide a bright line. :: Contention 1 - Scale of Justice Argument :: >My opponent's first contention is rebutted similarly to his criterion. Basically he message in his contention is this: killers deserve to be killed. He explained this properly, but apparently he does not understand that Capital Punishment is not ONLY for murders. Let's follow my opponent's logic for a moment. What should we do to rapists? We should rape them? Of course not. What happens if a killer has killed twice? We can't kill anyone twice, so what would the action be? We'd just kill them once. But isn't this unfair to those who only killed once themselves? They could die for only half of what someone else did to deserve the same punishment. Aren't two murders worse than one? >For the above reasons I urge a negation. >I used 6,974 characters.