Capital Punishment

I will address my own case, and then move on to rebut Con's. PRO's CASE Not once in his speech does Con rebut my case. Extend my arguments; they're dropped. The conclusion we can draw form my untouched case is: If criminals are due punishment And, if the worst criminals are due the worst punishments And, death is the worst punishment Then, the worst criminals are due death. Con never rebuts this logical, step-by-step analysis that I present in my case. This alone is enough to vote Pro. CON's CASE Con's example is indeed an exception. He presents a specific example meant to force readers to reach the conclusion he wants. I could do the same by positing that a general of some militia ordered his troops to rape, torture, and then burn alive 150 women and children. Does this general deserve death? According to my case's un-refuted analysis, the answer would be yes. In that case, the death penalty is morally permissible for the mentally competent. Basically though, the argument I am advancing is that the debate is not about what types of crimes deserve the death penalty. Rather, this debate is about whether the death penalty could be used in some instances. So, it does little good to debate what actions merit the death penalty, when we're talking about whether there is any crime out there that has the potential to be worthy of the death penalty. If such a crime could theoretically exist, as my cases shows, then a Pro ballot is in order. Con also never rebuts that there is a real and significant difference between justice and vengeance. Justice, and the administration thereof, is permissible as due process has been observed and a fair hearing given. With vengeance, there is little more than anger and kangaroo justice justifying the murder. In that case then, killing a killer is still wrong, unless due process has been borne out, and the authorities have already sentenced the killer to death. Con then calls on me to name the crimes for which I would enact capital punishment. (A) That's not the point of the debate. The point is to determine whether, in theory, there is any potential legitimacy in the death penalties use for a crime. In other words, I don't need to specify the crime, because if the death penalty is not always wrong, theoretically, then there are some cases in which it is morally permissible. (B) I did specify, as a back-up, that death should be meted out for those who commit crimes against humanity, like genocide and ethnic cleansing. Rage and stress are not adequate excuses for criminal behavior. If I get really angry at a teacher for giving me a poor grade which will cost me thousands of dollars in scholarship money, my anger does not justify me stabbing my teacher ten times in the back. I am still guilty, regardless of my anger or my stress, because I have duty to keep those emotions in check. Moreover, in cases of premeditation, criminals calculate and plan their crimes ahead of time. That's not a crime of passion--that's just cold, logical planning of a despicable act. Con admits that very few innocents actually die. This means that, under a cost-benefit analysis, death is acceptable because it is giving more people their due than it is taking away. Moreover, when talking about especially heinous crimes, or in cases where this is audio/video or DNA evidence, it becomes increasingly unlikely that an innocent person will be victimized by the system. But, ultimately, you are not guaranteed a perfect trial, you are only guaranteed a fair one. Innocents will be caught up, but that is the nature of human imperfection. We cannot fail to do something simply because we might hurt innocents. We justify wars and prison time, all of which can deprive innocents of their rights. As long as the trial is fair, death can, like these other things, be theoretically justified. Voltaire was once said--and I'm paraphrasing--I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Similarly, I may vehemently disagree with what you believe, but I will respect your right to believe it. Freedom of thought is absolute, I can think whatever I want. However, I cannot act on everything I think. Con claims I am saying that it is okay to kill--no, I'm not. I am saying you have a right to think what you may, but that you should not act on thoughts like that. Killing is wrong. Period. That does not mean that one cannot wish someone dead. There is a big difference between thinking and doing--and that difference is legally relevant. And yes, cultures do inform our beliefs and impact our acquisition of those beliefs, but you cannot compel people to change their beliefs once they have them. Persuasion is all well and good, but if they refuse to be persuaded, you cannot forcibly psychologically re-wire them to believe something else. That crosses the line into brainwashing. Finally, Con never rebuts my earlier idea that regardless of whether you are a changed person, your new views don't absolve you of your past wrongs. You still choose to commit a crime, to act on your thoughts. You knew what you were doing had consequences, and by doing it, you accepted those consequences. You are therefore owed those consequences, even if that means your own death. Meting out a justly determined due is not, as Con would have it, murder. Murder is a deprivation of someone's life. The death penalty is the fulfillment of your choices. People are autonomous--the restriction on that being that they cannot infringe upon others autonomy. That is why murder is wrong. The death penalty is not wrong because you chose, by your illegal acts, to bring death upon yourself. In that case, you aren't harming others, your harming your own person, and so the death penalty is owed to you. Society is just giving you what you deserve. To do otherwise would be unjustified paternalism, as evidenced in my case. IN SUMMARY 1. A criminal who commits a heinous crime is due death. He choose his fate by his actions, and so has accepted the inevitable consequence of his actions as his due. That due is capital punishment. This line of argumentation is outlined very clearly in my cases, which was never rebutted by Con. Please do not allow Con to address my case in this round, as I will not have a chance to defend it. 2. This debate is about whether there is any crime out there that has the potential to be worthy of death. Theoretically, the answer is yes. Under the proportionality principle in my case, the worst crimes should receive the worst penalties. The worst penalty is death. Thus, there are some crimes--the worst ones, like crimes against humanity--which merit capital punishment. Thus, the death penalty is morally permissible. 3. In terms of offense, I have the entirety of my case, whereas the Con does not have the entirety of his. This means that I not only have more offense, but that Con will be struggling more to meet his half of the BOP than I will. For these three reasons, I urge judges to VOTE PRO! Thanks for a great debate!