Resolved: A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

>>A just society is one in which the very basic principle of justice is upheld and promoted within a society, that principle is of giving each their due. To be clear, your claims of due and "just" and "justice" seem to be nothing more than thinly veiled claims of retribution of the eye for an eye variety (and failing that "unjustice" and "unjust"). "You kill somebody and we'll murder you!" -- I understand the sentiment, if somebody killed a loved-one of mine I'd want to murder them myself. However having the state kill them or doing so myself is unjust and unacceptable. Why? Because, killing people is wrong. Certainly societies can believe themselves just while not being just. The death penalty is simply the tip of the iceberg on that topic. Segregation, racism, slavery and every war in history can attest to this fact. However, if we are to suggest that the death penalty is somehow therefore just as a form of punishment, what are you condemning Nazism for? Imposing the death penalty for being Jewish, atheist, gay, or communist seems a tad harsh but judging from your argument, not having the death penalty at their disposal would have been a greater injustice. As a side note, you wrongly judge communism and democracy as mutually exclusive. It's quite possible to have a communist democracy or a capitalistic dictatorship. On this subject I hang my hat with Mr. Churchill who said that "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time." A system of justice is certainly a requirement for a civil society. However, the United States is the only westernized country with the death penalty. In fact, countries without the death penalty are exceedingly civil and quite just (thus undermining your oft repeated claim). In fact, considering the parallels you are suggesting that, if you aren't giving people their due (murdering them) then you aren't being just. You are implying that the justice systems of most of Europe are unjust because they don't adhere to the belief that two wrongs don't make a right. You argue that justice is a matter of interpretation. To this end you brought up Nazism to show that they believed themselves to be just. Honestly? This is your argument? "The death penalty is to be available in a just society because, although we need a good working justice system... it's all a crock and everybody makes up their own justice and maybe the Nazis were just?" -- Read my lips: killing people is wrong. You don't need to be told the death penalty is barbaric, ineffective, horribly executed, expensive, unneeded, or cruel; it is wrong to kill people. There is no wishy-washy justice or ethics on this point. Two wrongs do not make a right. It is wrong for one man to kill another just as it is wrong for the state to murder the killer of that man. It isn't subject to interpretation. It isn't something everybody gets to choose for themselves. I do not consent to be killed by anyone or any government or any society. Likewise, I must agree that nobody must consent to the taking of their own life even as a punishment. Regardless of the opinions of individuals or the general consensus of society; killing people is wrong. The death penalty is barbarism posing as civilized murder. You argue that the death penalty is a severe punishment to be used on people who "wish to destroy society i.e. murderers, who purposefully harm the innocent". None of this is true. Murders do not wish to destroy society (most of them at least) they wish to destroy the person they destroyed. They need not harm the innocent (you could murder the guilty if you so chose). You seem to imply that this is a kill or be killed proposition for all of society. Assemble a lynch mob or the government's going to fall! Why does society danger to become unjust if they don't murder people? If you murder people you're unjust, but if a society refuses to murder people it might be unjust? So what of the rest of the westernized world? Are they in danger of being unjust by simply locking their murderers away. Your argument, in this regard is a non-starter. Further, I certainly hold that murderers are in the wrong when they kill. But, how do you figure they surrender their right to life when they murder? Do they wave their right to council and a fair and speedy trial too? You ask why a society whose main priority is to be a fair and just society should not choose to murder people. Do I really have to spell it out: killing people is wrong and unjust. ---- At this point I would like to comment on the state of the debate. My opponent has done nothing up to this point to argue that a just society needs to have the death penalty. He has repeatedly, in several different forms, stated his premise. Why should a just society murder? Can a just society murder for child rape? Can a just society murder for theft? Can a just society murder for jaywalking? Can a just society murder for being Jewish? Can a just society murder for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Can a just society murder for murder? -- In all of these cases I argue, that an overriding principle applies: Killing People is Wrong. It is not the hallmark of a just society that they murder people. It does not make a society unjust to not murder people. Failing to murder people does not endanger a society towards injustice. A just society does not kill. My opponent has not made an argument as to why it is just for a society to kill people. He has attempted to define it into existence. "If one does not kill murders, you are unjust." "So a society must murder or else it will become unjust." "Unjust is the society that doesn't kill people!" -- To this argument, I need only counter with the claim that it is unjust for a society to murder. Therefore, a society cannot be just and use the death penalty. Done. That is the sum total of the argument thus far. Further, I have made a number of philosophical, practical, economic, logical and emotional arguments against the death penalty. These are to show that this barbarism of the past is not a part of a modern just society. I have argued my case in a number of different ways. My opponent has attempted to repeatedly define his case into existence. ---- Let me give credit where credit is due. The following does include in it an argument to suggest that the death penalty is just. "That would be injustice to the just citizens of the society and further putting them at risk." The claim that not killing a murderer is "putting [citizens] at risk." -- When a person is locked up behind bars and concrete for the rest of their lives, they don't pose a threat to society. Some far fetched fantasy of men behind stone and iron harming people does not come close to overruling the notion that killing people is wrong.