Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment for convicted murderers/killers.

Contention 1 My opponent says that I'm only being opinionated when I said my attack. However, I can say the same about her. My opponent never warrants why killing shouldn't warrant the same action. She then restates the finger analogy. My argument was that killing violates all rights, since your not living anymore. Thus, the only way to proportion that out to the criminal is the receive the death penalty. That's why killing is the only crime that warrants the exact action. She then goes on to say well what about the right to play the piano? The examples she given can be fixed by money from the criminal. There are many surgeries to get a new finger. Compensation is with possible time in jail is punishment enough for cutting off a finger. Contention 2 My opponent keeps on making the assertion that only God can take away the right to life. Not once have I mentioned this, because I don't believe it. (I also don't believe my opponent believes that). That is a very subjective statement. Essentially, we do not know the mind of God (if he exists). My opponent makes a definition error on inalienable. It does and does not mean not subject to forfeit. Explanation: According to Locke these rights in their natural state could not be forfeited. However, when the natural state was broken, i.e. when a crime has been committed, then the right becomes an alienable right. However, let's go further. THe term inalienable can br broken down. in (not)+ alienable (foreign) = inalienable. A not foreign right is a right not given by the government. You are born with it. This doesn't mean it cannot be taken away. For according to Locke a crime is unnatural, making the doer of the crime in an unnatural state. My opponent then wants me to answer this question: "why the 'government' has the right to condemn a person to death?" First off, the government as an institution set up by the people is a legitimate institution. It is also guided under the social contract between people and state. By this contract, the government has the power to take away the rights of its citizens that commit crimes against other innocent members. The government has the right to punish. The government punishes for two reasons: (1) from the retributive side, criminals deserve punishment, and, (2) from the utilitarian side, punishment is needed to protect our society by deterring crime through example. Locke explains that #1 is more important, and that #2 can either come or not. Essentially, first the government must punish to set justice in society. Then after this, punishment can protect society even more, thus holding up a part of the Social Contract. Now let's move to the right to condemn someone to death. The government has this right because from killing this is what the person deserves. Why the exact punishment only in the case of murder? Locke explains that killing violates all rights; all rights spring from the right to life. Thus when a killer kills EVERY right is violated, thus the government has the obligation to keep the rights violated between victim and criminal the same. Therefore, the death penalty is the only way to keep the rights equal. So, from this, the government ahs the right to take someones life away. Contention 3 Cost is important yes. However to uphold something greater then the cost really shouldn't matter. Yes, the death penalty is more expensive. However, a lot of things that are important come with a cost. Helping clean the environment is very costly, yet it is for something greater then money. As a side note, keeping someone in jail for life is also costly. Everything comes with a cost. If cost was utmost, then all punishments would be halted, all social programs disbanded. Cost should come secondary to principles that are greater, in this case, upholding justice within society. According to Rawls, society is nothing without a fundamental principle of justice behind it. Contention 4 I researched both those cases and this is what i found out: Jesse Tafero: The case is undecided because testimony is contradictory. He is neither presumed innocent yet, or guilty. Wayne Felker: Not enough evidence proves his innocence or guilt. This is a case of presumed innocence since not enough information proves him guilty. The key word is presumed, so he could still be guilty. My opponent then questioned my "justice". He says that no good can come from the death penalty. I have 3 response: A) Justice is not always "good". Justice is fairness and giving each their due. B) Good can be achieved if society is fair in what it does. When someone kills another person, then that person must take full culpability. I believe a society is "good" if it makes people take what they deserve. C) Consequential good can come from the death penalty. E.g. Incapacitation and deterrence. My opponent then says that life in prison is good enough. I beg to differ. A criminal in jail an still love, enjoy life, and do things that can only be done while living. The victim cannot. Life in jail just shows sympathy to a criminal and devalues the worth of the victim. Contention 9 My opponent then makes the case that it's better to leave someone in jail then to kill him. (Like what he said before). However, lets take this further. Let's say there is no afterlife. By killing the criminal you have taken away everything. He is virtually non-existent. You have taken the very life from him. That is the worst punishment ever, and that is what he deserves. My opponent believes he will suffer, and that should be his punishment. Suffering is part of life, at least he still has it. Suffering ends, it is only temporary. However death is final, there is no going back to earth after that. Death is what he deserves and it is the only punishment that is bad enough for an evil eprson that kills. A person that kills deserves neither suffering nor happiness. He deserves nothing, like what he gave the person he killed. Contention 5 I do not believe there is no corruption present, as my opponent makes it seem, however, my point is that everything has corruption. And also, what would be the purpose of killing someone off for a corrupt reason. Furthermore my opponent hasn't proven this, which is what I really asked for. Prove that corruption and the death penalty go hand in hand. Corruption is a non-unique argument. There is nothing special between the death penalty and corruption. Contention 6 Con misses my point. My point is that deterrence comes secondary. Justice must be achieved first. If deterrence comes, then great. I have no need to refute this point because deterrence cannot be proven or disproven. It is a mute point. It neither affirms nor negates. Contention 7 I did provide a source. Look at top. I said politico.com. And my stat holds more weight because mine covers the whole country, not just one state (which happens to lean heavily left) Contention 8 I have responded in above arguments. My Contention My opponent just makes the statement that it is flawed. Also, I never said that only the death penalty can be universalized. E.g. Kant explains that to see if an action is moral/just depends on universality. Take stealing for instance. Kant says that by stealing you have stolen from yourself. You have made an evil immoral mark on yourself. Therefore, the government universalizes the action of stealing and steals you as a person by putting you in jail, or steals your money, by taking money and giving it to your victim. My opponent makes a fast conclusion when she made her attack. Her attack had nothing to do with my argument and thus my contentions stands for the remaining rounds. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.